Some thoughts on health and healthcare

Abstract An acute hospital can be clinically successful and financially healthy only when quality management, clinical practice, operational efficiency, patient outcomes, and reimbursement are governed as one integrated system. The Donabedian model provides the conceptual logic: structures shape care processes, and processes determine outcomes. Value-based healthcare (VBHC) adds the strategic objective: maximize patient-relevant outcomes relative to the cost of achieving them. Evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice provide the epistemic standard for clinical decisions, while Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) impose a financial discipline by linking hospital revenue to case mix, coding, resource use, and length of stay. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) ensure that “success” is not reduced to mortality, complications, throughput, or margin alone. The Electronic Health Record (EHR), supported by Clinical Decision Support ...

Abstract In an acute hospital, Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) and patient-based costing solve different, complementary problems. DRGs are a prospective payment and case-mix classification mechanism : they group inpatient episodes for reimbursement and resource allocation using coded diagnoses, procedures, severity, and other episode variables. Patient-based costing - especially Activity-Based Costing (ABC) and Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) - is an internal measurement method : it estimates the actual resources consumed by a given patient across the care cycle. The practical implication is that DRGs tell the hospital what it is likely to be paid, while patient-based costing tells the hospital what the case actually cost. An effective acute-hospital costing architecture therefore requires structured EHR data, reliable timestamps and event logs, linkage to HR/finance/supply systems, and a semantic layer that uses SNOMED CT and LOINC for point-of-care capture and WHO ICD-11 a...

Abstract A defensible Belgian pathway to Major Diagnostic Categories (MDCs) and Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) based on WHO ICD-11 and WHO ICHI could be built as a three-layer architecture: SNOMED CT for point-of-care clinical semantics, WHO ICD-11 Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (MMS) and WHO International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) for classification of diagnoses and interventions, and a transparent national grouper that consumes standardized episode variables and produces reimbursement classes. That architecture should not assume the existence of an official global SNOMED CT→WHO ICD-11 or SNOMED CT→WHO ICHI reimbursement-grade map. WHO states that the outcome of WHO ICD-11/SNOMED CT mapping collaboration remains under discussion and is not guaranteed, while WHO’s ICD-11 licensing materials also state that mappings and crosswalks are not covered by the base WHO ICD-11 licence and may require separate written agreement. SNOMED International documents official ma...