Which Reimbursement System Fits Inpatient Palliative Care? A Qualitative Interview Study on Clinicians' and Financing Experts' Experiences and Views

Abstract

Abstract

Context:

Internationally, a variety of reimbursement systems exists for palliative care (PC). In Germany, PC units (PCUs) may choose between per-diem rates and diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). Both systems are controversially discussed.

Objectives:

To explore the experiences and views of German PCU clinicians and experts for PCU financing regarding per-diem rates and DRGs as reimbursement systems with a focus on (1) cost coverage, (2) strengths and weaknesses of both financing systems, and (3) options for further development of funding PCUs.

Design:

Qualitative semistructured interviews with PCU clinicians and experts for PCU financing, analyzed by thematic analysis using the Framework approach.

Setting/Subjects/Measurements:

Ten clinicians and 13 experts for financing were interviewed June–October 2015 on both reimbursement systems for PCU.

Results:

Interviewees had divergent experiences with both reimbursement systems regarding cost coverage. A described strength of per-diem rates was the perceived possibility of individual care without direct financial pressure. The nationwide variation of per-diem rates and the lack of quality standards were named as weaknesses. DRGs were criticized for incentives perceived as perverse and inadequate representation of PC-specific procedures. However, the quality standards for PCUs required within the German DRG system were described as important strength. Suggestions for improvement of the funding system pointed toward a combination of per-diem rates with a grading according to disease severity/complexity of care.

Conclusions:

Expert opinions suggest that neither current DRGs nor per-diem rates are ideal for funding of PCUs. Suggested improvements regarding adequate funding of PCUs resemble and supplement international developments.