Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparing financing models for supplementary healthcare in appendectomy: activity-based costing (fee-for-service) vs. diagnosis related group remuneration (bundled payment): a systematic review and meta-analysis
Lino, André de Arimatéia de Souza; Cruz, Jose Arnaldo Shiomi da; Porto, Breno Cordeiro; Nogueira, Rhuan Pimentel; Otoch, José Pinhata; Artifon, Everson Luiz de Almeida.
  • Lino, André de Arimatéia de Souza; Universidade de São Paulo. School of Medicine. Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery. São Paulo. BR
  • Cruz, Jose Arnaldo Shiomi da; Universidade de São Paulo. School of Medicine. Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery. São Paulo. BR
  • Porto, Breno Cordeiro; Universidade de São Paulo. School of Medicine. Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery. São Paulo. BR
  • Nogueira, Rhuan Pimentel; Universidade de São Paulo. School of Medicine. Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery. São Paulo. BR
  • Otoch, José Pinhata; Universidade de São Paulo. School of Medicine. Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery. São Paulo. BR
  • Artifon, Everson Luiz de Almeida; Universidade de São Paulo. School of Medicine. Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery. São Paulo. BR
Acta cir. bras ; 38: e386923, 2023. tab, graf, ilus
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS, VETINDEX | ID: biblio-1527585
ABSTRACT
Purpose: In Brazil, healthcare services traditionally follow a fee-for-service (FFS) payment system, in which each medical procedure incurs a separate charge. An alternative reimbursement with the aim of reducing costs is diagnosis related group (DRG) remuneration, in which all patient care is covered by a fixed amount. This work aimed to perform a systematic review followed by meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of the Budled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) versus FFS. Methods: Our work was performed following the items of the PRISMA report. We included only observational trials, and the primary outcome assessed was the effectiveness of FFS and DRG in appendectomy considering complications. We also assessed the costs and length of hospital stay. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man version 5.4. Results: Out of 735 initially identified articles, six met the eligibility criteria. We demonstrated a shorter hospital stay associated with the DRG model (mean difference = 0.39; 95% confidence interval ­ 95%CI ­ 0.38­0.40; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%), however the hospital readmission rate was higher in this model (odds ratio = 1.57; 95%CI 1.02­2.44, p = 0.04; I2 = 90%). Conclusions: This study reveals a potential decrease in the length of stay for appendectomy patients using the DRG approach. However, no significant differences were observed in other outcomes analysis between the two approaches.
Asunto(s)


Texto completo: Disponible Índice: LILACS (Américas) Asunto principal: Apendicectomía / Financiación de la Atención de la Salud / Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud Tipo de estudio: Estudio diagnóstico / Evaluación Económica en Salud / Estudio pronóstico / Revisiones Sistemáticas Evaluadas Idioma: Inglés Revista: Acta cir. bras Asunto de la revista: Cirugía General / Procedimentos Cir£rgicos Operat¢rios Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Artículo País de afiliación: Brasil Institución/País de afiliación: Universidade de São Paulo/BR

Similares

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Texto completo: Disponible Índice: LILACS (Américas) Asunto principal: Apendicectomía / Financiación de la Atención de la Salud / Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud Tipo de estudio: Estudio diagnóstico / Evaluación Económica en Salud / Estudio pronóstico / Revisiones Sistemáticas Evaluadas Idioma: Inglés Revista: Acta cir. bras Asunto de la revista: Cirugía General / Procedimentos Cir£rgicos Operat¢rios Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Artículo País de afiliación: Brasil Institución/País de afiliación: Universidade de São Paulo/BR