Cited by 47Healthcare Policy and ManagementHealthcare Systems and ReformsHealthcare Quality and Management

After the Revolution: DRGs at Age 30

Quinn, Kevin·2014·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

1 October 2013 marked 30 years since Medicare began paying hospitals by diagnosis-related group (DRG), arguably the most influential innovation in the history of health care financing. Initially developed as a tool for hospital management, DRGs became the basis of the inpatient prospective payment system that Medicare implemented in 1983. The strong incentives were revolutionary in their impact. Medicare spending growth slowed sharply, and, more remarkable, hospitals posted record profits. After the link between cost and payment was broken, hospitals moved quickly to cut costs. Nevertheless, a literature survey concluded that none of the worst fears about adverse effects on patients were realized. Diagnosis-related groups have also come to define "the product of a hospital" for purposes of benchmarking and risk adjustment. The acceptance of DRG algorithms owes much to their categorical approach, clinical focus, and transparency. The 2 most commonly used algorithms, Medicare DRGs and All Patient Refined (APR) DRGs, typically explain more than 40% of cost variance in inpatient stays, although with considerable range by care category. Because Medicare DRGs are unsuitable for obstetrics, pediatrics, and neonatology, some payers prefer APR DRGs. Diagnosis-related groups have proven to be a suitable basis for payment, as evidenced by widespread use. Common issues include mitigation of adverse incentives, appropriate payment for extremely costly stays, applicability to certain hospitals and care categories, and growing complexity. The DRG experience offers lessons about the effectiveness of financial incentives, the likelihood of adverse effects, the usefulness of case-mix measures, the risks of growing complexity, and the example that sensible policy need not be the domain of any one political party or other entity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/m13-2115

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quinn, K.
Affiliations
Xerox (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Quinn, Kevin
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2014-03-18
Volume
160
Issue
6
Pages
426-429
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2082432478
Cited by
47
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
9.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Healthcare Systems and Reforms
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
diagnosis-related groups, Medicare, prospective payment system, hospital payment reform, hospital cost containment, risk adjustment, benchmarking, financial incentives, hospital profitability, health care financing
MeSH terms
Diagnosis-Related Groups, Economics, Hospital, Medicare, Hospital Administration, United States, Efficiency, Organizational, History, 20th Century

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