ライフサイエンスコーパス: diagnosis-related group

1 eme severity of illness (All Patient Refined Diagnosis-Related Groups).

2 d payments overall, by hospital type, and by diagnosis related group.

3 All hospitalizations were assigned a diagnosis-related group.

4 or similar patients on the basis of modified diagnosis-related groups.

5 ts than did a noninteractive system based on diagnosis-related groups.

6 s restricted to inpatients with diagnoses in diagnosis-related groups 014-015 (Stroke and TIA [transi

7 s-related groups, for example, $452 K/yr for diagnosis-related group 148.

8 Patients older than 18 yrs in diagnosis-related group 475 and group 483, who were admi

9 A noninteractive model based on diagnosis-related groups, age, and medical comorbidity h

10 nalysis focused on admissions with a medical diagnosis related group and a secondary analysis focused

11 between the percent intensive care unit in a diagnosis related group and the percent paid, with payme

12 ization costs were estimated on the basis of diagnosis-related group and in-hospital complications.

13 and December 31, 2013, were identified using diagnosis-related group and International Classification

14 -14 yrs old were studied, excluding neonatal Diagnosis-Related Groups and emergency department deaths

15 ensitive cardiac biomarkers, introduction of diagnosis-related groups, and change in International Cl

16 s, which is a hospital stay that exceeds the Diagnosis Related Group-based trim point.

17 e interval -722 dollars to 45 dollars) using diagnosis-related group-based Medicare reimbursement rat

18 l bleeding, or congestive heart failure or a Diagnosis Related Group classification of general, ortho

19 e, gastrointestinal bleeding, or stroke or a diagnosis related group classification of general, ortho

20 e, gastrointestinal bleeding, or stroke or a diagnosis related group classification of general, ortho

21 .72 (mechanical ventilation for >96 hrs) and Diagnosis Related Group code 483 (tracheostomy except fo

22 d from the hospital during 1993 with a final diagnosis-related groups code of 483.

23 italized for surgery (as defined by surgical diagnosis related group codes), and discharged alive and

24 Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group codes for heart failure, urinary

25 Costs were calculated by extracting Diagnosis-Related Group codes from institutional billing

26 s on various HCAHPS measures with specialty, diagnosis-related group complexity, cancer diagnosis, se

27 s were matched to cases on primary discharge diagnosis related group (DRG), age, sex, acuity, and yea

28 models of various mixes of fee-for-service, diagnosis-related group (DRG) and capitated payers.

29 Congestive heart failure is the leading diagnosis-related group (DRG) discharge diagnosis in the

30 ars since Medicare began paying hospitals by diagnosis-related group (DRG), arguably the most influen

31 The data were analyzed by diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), length of stay (LOS), i

32 al testing was done and who were matched for diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), regardless of whether a

33 Additional diagnosis related groups for conditions common to the in

34 Charlson index diseases, the 15 most common diagnosis related groups for death by 100 days, intensiv

35 ple (NIS) was used to identify mothers using diagnosis related groups for vaginal and cesarean delive

36 e in PCU (range, $851,511-2,007,388) and top diagnosis-related groups, for example, $452 K/yr for dia

37 0.86; the measure called All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups had the highest for coronary ar

38 Few diagnosis related groups have a large enough intensive c

39 Diagnosis-related groups have also come to define "the p

40 Diagnosis-related groups have proven to be a suitable ba

41 ents; cost variability for Medicare severity diagnosis related groups measured as coefficient of vari

42 4 to 2008) hospitalizations were assessed by diagnosis-related group Medicare reimbursement rates; co

43 ores (p < 0.001), higher all-patient refined diagnosis-related group mortality risk (p < 0.001), and

44 introduced sepsis codes and medical severity diagnosis-related group (MS-DRG) systems on sepsis trend

45 ult of medical care and death among those in diagnosis-related groups normally associated with low mo

46 roviders, as has been done with the Medicare diagnosis-related-group payment and capitation reimburse

47 .42+/-0.01% to 0.89+/-0.01% of Medicare base diagnosis-related-group payments.

48 ferences in length of stay were adjusted for diagnosis-related group, principal diagnosis, selected c

49 tratified into procedure categories based on diagnosis related group procedure codes.

50 The current diagnosis related group reimbursement system can be expe

51 ype, hospital region, 3M All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group risk of mortality score, hospita

52 everity of illness using All Patient Refined-Diagnosis Related Groups scores was used as a covariate.

53 is was performed to calculate risk-adjusted, diagnosis-related group-specific hospital costs and paym

54 andard for 501- to 800-g survivors under the diagnosis related group system.

55 ment systems such as the well-known Medicare diagnosis-related group system for hospital inpatients.

56 ere stratified using the All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups to estimate the change in hospi

57 Modification diagnosis, severity of illness (diagnosis-related group weight), and chronic kidney dise

58 Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Groups were assigned to all cardiovasc

59 day longer than that of patients in the same diagnosis-related group whose most recent hospitalizatio

60 cent paid, with payment >90% of cost only in diagnosis related groups with >/=60% intensive care unit

61 For Medicare severity diagnosis related groups with the highest total direct c