Contains information on the most frequent diagnosis and procedures for the top 50 diagnosis-related groups in the United States community hospitals. For each entry, the most common principal diagnosis and most common performed principal procedures are listed. Charges and length of stay are listed for each combination. Results are detailed by insurance status: privately insured, Medicaid, and self-pay patients.

This book examines how nine different health systems--U.S. Medicare, Australia, Thailand, Kyrgyz Republic, Germany, Estonia, Croatia, China (Beijing) and the Russian Federation--have transitioned to using case-based payments, and especially diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), as part of their provider payment mix for hospital care. It sheds light on why particular technical design choices were made, what enabling investments were pertinent, and what broader political and institutional issues needed to be considered. The strategies used to phase in DRG payment receive special attention. These nine systems have been selected because they represent a variety of different approaches and experiences in DRG transition. They include the innovators who pioneered DRG payment systems (namely the United States and Australia), mature systems (such as Thailand, Germany, and Estonia), and countries where DRG payments were only introduced within the past decade (such as the Russian Federation and China). Each system is examined in detail as a separate case study, with a synthesis distilling the cross-cutting lessons learned. This book should be helpful to those working on health systems that are considering introducing, or are in the early stages of introducing, DRG-based payments into their provider payment mix. It will enhance the reader's understanding of how other countries (or systems) have made that transition, give a sense of the decisions that lie ahead, and offer options that can be considered. It will also be useful to those working in health systems that already include DRG payments in the payment mix but have not yet achieved the anticipated results.

Many Americans believe that people who lack health insurance somehow get the care they really need. Care Without Coverage examines the real consequences for adults who lack health insurance. The study presents findings in the areas of prevention and screening, cancer, chronic illness, hospital-based care, and general health status. The committee looked at the consequences of being uninsured for people suffering from cancer, diabetes, HIV infection and AIDS, heart and kidney disease, mental illness, traumatic injuries, and heart attacks. It focused on the roughly 30 million-one in seven-working-age Americans without health insurance. This group does not include the population over 65 that is covered by Medicare or the nearly 10 million children who are uninsured in this country. The main findings of the report are that working-age Americans without health insurance are more likely to receive too little medical care and receive it too late; be sicker and die sooner; and receive poorer care when they are in the hospital, even for acute situations like a motor vehicle crash.

Getting the right diagnosis is a key aspect of health care - it provides an explanation of a patient's health problem and informs subsequent health care decisions. The diagnostic process is a complex, collaborative activity that involves clinical reasoning and information gathering to determine a patient's health problem. According to Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, diagnostic errors-inaccurate or delayed diagnoses-persist throughout all settings of care and continue to harm an unacceptable number of patients. It is likely that most people will experience at least one diagnostic error in their lifetime, sometimes with devastating consequences. Diagnostic errors may cause harm to patients by preventing or delaying appropriate treatment, providing unnecessary or harmful treatment, or resulting in psychological or financial repercussions. The committee concluded that improving the diagnostic process is not only possible, but also represents a moral, professional, and public health imperative. Improving Diagnosis in Health Care, a continuation of the landmark Institute of Medicine reports To Err Is Human (2000) and Crossing the Quality Chasm (2001), finds that diagnosis-and, in particular, the occurrence of diagnostic errorsâ€"has been largely unappreciated in efforts to improve the quality and safety of health care. Without a dedicated focus on improving diagnosis, diagnostic errors will likely worsen as the delivery of health care and the diagnostic process continue to increase in complexity. Just as the diagnostic process is a collaborative activity, improving diagnosis will require collaboration and a widespread commitment to change among health care professionals, health care organizations, patients and their families, researchers, and policy makers. The recommendations of Improving Diagnosis in Health Care contribute to the growing momentum for change in this crucial area of health care quality and safety.

These guidelines have been approved by the four organizations that make up the Cooperating Parties for the ICD-10-CM: the American Hospital Association (AHA), the American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA), CMS, and NCHS. These guidelines are a set of rules that have been developed to accompany and complement the official conventions and instructions provided within the ICD-10-CM itself. The instructions and conventions of the classification take precedence over guidelines. These guidelines are based on the coding and sequencing instructions in the Tabular List and Alphabetic Index of ICD-10-CM, but provide additional instruction. Adherence to these guidelines when assigning ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes is required under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The diagnosis codes (Tabular List and Alphabetic Index) have been adopted under HIPAA for all healthcare settings. A joint effort between the healthcare provider and the coder is essential to achieve complete and accurate documentation, code assignment, and reporting of diagnoses and procedures. These guidelines have been developed to assist both the healthcare provider and the coder in identifying those diagnoses that are to be reported. The importance of consistent, complete documentation in the medical record cannot be overemphasized. Without such documentation accurate coding cannot be achieved. The entire record should be reviewed to determine the specific reason for the encounter and the conditions treated.