The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Accuracy of Diagnostic Coding for Medicare Patients under the Prospective-Payment System
Abstract
Reimbursement of hospitals by Medicare under the prospective-payment system is based on patients' diagnoses as coded at discharge. During the period October 1984 through March 1985, we studied the accuracy of the coding for diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) in hospitals receiving Medicare reimbursement. We used a two-stage cluster method to sample 7050 medical records from 239 hospitals that were stratified according to size. Using blinded techniques with reliability checks, medical-record specialists reabstracted the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes to assign correct DRGs to discharged patients. The correct DRGs were then compared with those originally assigned by the physician and the hospital administration. The study revealed an error rate of 20.8 percent in DRG coding. Errors were distributed equally between physicians and hospitals. Small hospitals had significantly higher error rates. Previous studies had found that errors occurred randomly, so that half the errors benefited the hospital financially and half penalized the hospital. The present study found that a statistically significant 61.7 percent of coding errors favored the hospital. These errors caused the average hospital's case-mix index--a measure of the complexity of illness of the hospital's patients--to increase by 1.9 percent. As a result, hospitals received higher net reimbursement from Medicare than was supportable by the medical records. We conclude that "creep" does occur in the coding of DRGs, resulting in overpayment to hospitals for patients covered by Medicare.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases
DEYO, R. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8 · Cited by 10,452
The epidemiology of sepsis in the United States from 1979 through 2000
Martin, G. S., Mannino, D. M., Eaton, S., & Moss, M. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022139 · Cited by 5,841
Measuring Diagnoses: ICD Code Accuracy
O'Malley, K. J., Cook, K. F., Price, M. D., Wildes, K. R., Hurdle, J. F., & Ashton, C. M. (2005) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00444.x · Cited by 1,116
Levitan, N., Dowlati, A., Remick, S. C., Tahsildar, H. I., Sivinski, L. D., Beyth, R., & Rimm, A. A. (1999) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/00005792-199909000-00001 · Cited by 891
Prognostic Indices for Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Yourman, L. C., Lee, S. J., Schonberg, M. A., Widera, E. W., & Smith, A. K. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1966 · Cited by 736
Metadata
- Authors
- Hsia, D. C., Krushat, W. M., Fagan, A. B., Tebbutt, J. A., & Kusserow, R. P.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1988-02-11
- Volume
- 318
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 352-355
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2319214361
- Cited by
- 487
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 60.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accuracy of Diagnostic Coding for Medicare Patients under the Prospective-Payment System. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198802113180604
- The paper
- Hsia, D. C., Krushat, W. M., Fagan, A. B., Tebbutt, J. A., & Kusserow, R. P. (1988). Accuracy of Diagnostic Coding for Medicare Patients under the Prospective-Payment System. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198802113180604
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.