Vagus nerve stimulation for depression
|Target version:||Target version 2019|
|Case type:||Minor||Owner / responsible:||National organisations|
|MDC:||MDC19||Old forum status:|
The procedure code ADB00 ’Inläggande av vagusnervsstimuleringsutrustning’ (in NCSP+ ADSB00 ’Implantation of vagus nerve stimulating device’) is grouped to DRG A20 ‘Implantation/byte av nervstimulator …’ (former DRG 570/570O ‘Insertion or replacement of nervous system central stimulation device’) when the principal diagnosis is epilepsy (MDC 01). Vagus nerve stimulation is approved also for the treatment of chronic or reccurring depression, however, but with principal diagnoses in MDC 19, ADB00/ADSB00 will not be grouped to DRG A20/570/570O but instead to the very unspecific DRG T01 ‘Operationer vid psykiska besvär …’ (former DRG 424N/O ‘O. r. procedure w principal diagnos of mental illness or abuse …’). This is not logical. We want that the cases with implantation of vagus nerve stimulating device are grouped to DRG A20/570/570O also when the principal diagnosis is in MDC 19. Cost analysis is not needed.
Norway does not have this problem with the because they already have a rule with ORD 400D900000 for MDC. (This rule in the pre-MDC area may cause another problem that Norway has to deal with. If a CNS stimulation device is inserted and another much greater intervention is performed during the same episode, the case will still be grouped to DRG 570.)
NPK, Sweden – 2018-01-25. NPK ID C711.
Cases with implantation of vagus nerve stimulating device (ADB00/ADSB00) and a principal diagnosis in MDC 19 should be grouped to DRG A20/570/570O instead of DRG T01/424N/O. This is already the situation for inpatients in Norway.
Cases with implantation of vagus nerve stimulating device (ADB00/ ADSB00) and a principal diagnosis in MDC 19 are grouped to DRG A20/570/570O instead of DRG T01/424N/O. No DRG change for inpatients in Norway.
• A copy of the present rule for DRG A20O/570O (ORD 101D0590001 in SOS version and ORD 101D059000 in COMMON version) but with MDC 01 exchanged to MDC 19 is inserted before the first rule for DRG T01O/424O. Some ORD changes for the first rules for DRG T01O/424O must be done to make spaces for the new rules in the 119D area. See TC_C711.xlsx for details.
• A copy of the present rule for DRG A20N/570 (ORD 401D060000 in SOS and COMMON and ORD 401D059000 in FIN) but with MDC 01 exchanged to MDC 19 is inserted before the first rule for DRG T01N/424N. This is not needed in the Norwegian version because the rule with ORD 400D900000 covers all MDCs. See TC_C711.xlsx for details.
#1 Updated by Kristiina Kahur 8 months ago
Finnish National DRG-Centre 8-2-2018
One case with combination of maindx from MDC19 and ADB00 in 2015 in Finnish data only, resulting in DRG 424N. In 2014 and 2016 no such cases. The impact of the change would be very low. From clincial point of view the suggestion is logical and we support it.
#3 Updated by Martti Virtanen 7 months ago
- File Technical changes case #580.xlsx added
2018-03-05 Martti Virtanen
I have a difficulty with the proposed change.
The DRG's 424O and 424N 'O. r. procedure w principal diagnos of mental illness or abuse' for outpatients and inpatients are indeed extremely unspecific. There is definetely need for differentiation of specific treatment of psychiatric problems with interventions.
Vagal nerve stimulation has been used since more than 10 years for anxiety and the conditions for which it is used include even schizophrenia. To assign these clear psychiatric cases to a neurological DRG does not seem correct.
The procedure property 01S51 includes a number of interventions that at least currently have not associated with psychiatric therapy. If the patient has psychiatric principal dx, it is questionable where they should be assigned.
There is no case for the Norwegian change of adding a new rule for DRG 570X at ord 400D900000 and thus it has not been discussed. In addition to overruling any other combination of dx and intervention as described by Mats Fernström, it makes the rules 401D060000 and 419D011000 not applicable, since all cases are already assigned by rule 400D900000.
Thus, if the proposal is accepted the rule 400D900000 should be inactivated and the new rule used also for Nor-version.
#4 Updated by Martti Virtanen 7 months ago
- File Technical changes case #580 & #587.xlsx added
2018-03-06 Martti Virtanen
Case #587 clearly improves case #580. It makes possible to group only vagus stimulation in MDC 19 the specified DRG.
Therea are much less changes needed that Swe has proposed. As long as property 01S51 is retained for all interventions, the order of rules takes care of the correct assignment.
Since this is really a compined case, the technical changes are combined. They are written as the other countries would stay in their old versions, but can be easily modified.
I am still concerned about combining psychiatric cases with neurological.
#6 Updated by Mats Fernström 6 months ago
- File Technical changes case _580 & _587 Comments MF.xlsx added
- File TC_#580&587_C711&741_2018-04-05.xlsx added
Mats Fernström, NPK Sweden 2018-04-05 (Swe ID C711&741)
I have checked the file Technical changes case #580 & #587.xlsx and found some few errors. See my file Technical changes case _580 & _587 Comments MF.xlsx. Corrections that should be done are marked with red characters and my comments are in a column to the right. Among the most important things are that some ID and ORD have been mixed up which is easily done since these columns are in opposite order in the definition table Drglogic. The template for technical changes should have the same order as the definition table!
Furthermore, since we have divided the DRG A20N (570) we no longer want the inpatient rule based on 01S51 in the MDC 19 area that we suggested in case #580. This is because the rule includes other things than implantation of vagal stimulator.
And once again, Norway has to decide what to do with the rule with ORD 400D900000. That rule will make all changes further down in Drglogic impossible for Norway.
I include the file for technical changes in the Swedish version (TC#580&587_C711&741_2018-04-05.xlsx_) for information.
#7 Updated by Hanne Osnes-Ringen 6 months ago
As far as I understand, we do not have any problem with grouping of this procedure in Norway. We have 138 cases a year. All of these cases except 3, group to 570 or 570O. DRG 570 and 570O includes similar procedures and no other greater interventions in these DRGs. We therefore would not like to do any changes concerning this case.
#8 Updated by Mats Fernström 6 months ago
Mats Fernström, NPK Sweden 2018-04-11 (Swe ID C711 & C741)
The rule with ORD 400D900000 causes no problem as long as you don’t want the new DRG 571 that Swe and Fin will introduce, but Martti should then delete “Nor” in the field “nat_ver” on the rules with ORD 401D060000 and 419D0109900 because these rules are impossible - all cases with these procedures are grouped according the rule with ORD 400D900000.