[Revenue and losses with vertebral augmentation under the G-DRG system 2012 - a comparison of supply costs in the context of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty].

BACKGROUND

If clearly indicated and implemented, augmentations of vertebral bodies with cement are standardized, safe and low-risk procedures. However, the multiplicity of providers and systems are today more varied than ever. At present, the systems differ starkly from one another not only in specifications, possible applications and extensions of indications, but they are also extremely variable in price. Publications have shown that in times of medical-economic change, vertebral augmentations make sense not only medically, but also in terms of economics and the national economy. Our analysis targets the question of how insurance costs with vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty affect profit margins per G-DRG (German Diagnosis Related Groups) in consideration of the different system approaches of the providers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After reviewing the literature, extremely varied, minimally invasive augmentation methods and techniques for treating vertebral body fractures were identified and classified. These were grouped based also [sic: on] OPS and possibly further subdivisions. Material costs were gathered based on average price quotations of different providers and techniques and aligned with those from the literature. The inpatient costs per day were estimated as a lump sum according to published information, since our analysis was interested in less detailed process costs as these are difficult to transfer to other clinics due to parameters being unique to each facility. The G-DRGs concerned were likewise determined according to the case-based lump sum catalogue from 2012. Based on this, the material costs as well as the daily costs per day of inpatient stay according to the average length of stay per G-DRG were subtracted.

RESULTS

Vertebral augmentation methods are classified into vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty according to OPS. In addition, according to current literature, a further subdivision of kyphoplasty into substance-conserving or direct cement injection techniques and substance-destroying or indirect cement injection techniques took place. The procedures involve material costs between 10-40 % of G-DRG revenue. The profit margin of vertebral augmentation ranges from approx. 4100 € to approx. 11 400 €. The calculative costs of the inpatient care per day amount to 488.86 €. Based on the average lengths of stay per G-DRG (7.8-12.6 days) for 2012 determined by the InEK (Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus [Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System]), the financial costs of inpatient care were calculated between 3813.11 € and 6159.65 €. A shortfall of -197.53 € for the treatment of a vertebral body resulted for the vertebroplasty. This shortfall increases with the treatment of three vertebral bodies and a PCCL = 4 to -466.30 €. The indirect cement injection techniques accounted for a positive profit margin of 196.03 € for the treatment of a vertebra. Due to high material costs, however, this dips into the negative in the amount of -1227.70 € for two vertebrae and increases to -2522.50 € for the treatment of three vertebral bodies. In contrast, the multilevel care in substance-preserving kyphoplasty techniques show a positive profit margin of 72.30 € for the treatment of two vertebrae and 577.50 € for the treatment of three vertebrae.

CONCLUSION

Against the background of the increasing economization of the health care system, it should be emphasized once more that the decision for a therapy or a system based on medical reasons should only be made by the treating physician. The vertebroplasty could not be performed at a profit in our analysis, despite comparatively low material costs. A shortfall between -197.53 € and -466.30 € was determined. The comparatively higher material costs of the kyphoplasty make comparisons important. The results of our investigation also show that supposedly inexpensive purchases of materials are not automatically a favorable alternative. In addition, the kyphoplasty techniques currently available on the market are not necessarily comparable. According to our investigation, profits of between 196.03 € and 577.50 € are to be realized in the selection of vertebral augmentation systems based on purely economic considerations. The results of our analysis show that the pure comparison of figures of the average material costs of a G-DRG and the material price distort the picture. A calculation of the profit margin on the basis of costs of care per vertebral body is more definitive.