Objective: The paper examines the association of innovative antineoplastic drug use with cost structure, grouping performance, and payment deviations in tumor-related diagnosis-related groups (DRG), and compares hematologic malignancies with solid tumors. Methods: This single-center retrospective real-world study included 55425 inpatient cases from 54 tumor-related DRG groups at Hospital A from January 2024 to December 2025. The coefficient of variation (CV) and reduction in variance (RIV) were used to assess grouping performance. A 1∶1 propensity score matching (PSM) model based on age, length of stay, and surgical status was applied, followed by tumor-type subgroup analysis. Multivariable linear regression, single drug cost association analysis, DRG balance attribution, and a regression decision tree were performed to analyze cost and payment deviations. Results: Adding an innovative antineoplastic drug-use indicator reduced the weighted mean CV from 0.7719 to 0.7619 and increased the RIV from 0.5549 to 0.5647 in the original sample. After matching, 10732 cases were included. The RIV increased by 0.0513 overall, 0.0746 for hematologic malignancies, and 0.0518 for solid tumors. The drug-use indicator yielded an RIV greater than 0.5 in several DRG groups, including FM5B, FR1B, FW19, GJ1B, and FR21. After controlling for age, length of hospital stay, and surgery status, innovative antineoplastic drug use was associated with approximately 80.1% higher total hospitalization costs (P<0.001). Greater use of osimertinib, flumatinib, almonertinib, and several other agents was associated with lower DRG balances. The regression tree identified key dosage thresholds for recombinant human endostatin and other targeted agents. Conclusion: Innovative antineoplastic drug use provides additional explanatory value for within-group cost differences, but its grouping value varies across tumor types and DRG groups. Priority groups should be selected by jointly considering RIV, CV, sample size, cost gaps, and clinical interpretability, with refined grouping, transitional payment support, special-case review, and dynamic weight adjustment used in coordination.
Key words
diagnosis-related groups /
innovative antineoplastic drugs /
propensity score matching /
grouping performance /
payment deviation
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 国家医疗保障局.疾病诊断相关分组(DRG)付费国家试点技术规范和分组方案[EB/OL].(2019-10-24)[2026-02-25].http://www.nhsa.gov.cn/art/2019/10/24/art_53_1879.html.
[2] 王凯旋,李顺平,窦蕾,等.国内靶向药物治疗结直肠癌的经济学研究系统评价[J].中国现代应用药学,2023,40(12):1621-1629.
[3] 刘晓婕,蒋虹丽,陈文.国家医保谈判对公立医院抗肿瘤药物采购费用、数量及结构的影响:以EGFR-TKI靶向药物为例[J].中国卫生资源,2023,26(4):370-376.
[4] Huang C, Ung C O L, Wushouer H, et al. The impact of the provincial reimbursement scheme on the use of targeted anticancer medications in Zhejiang, China:a controlled interrupted time-series analysis[J]. Journal of Chinese Pharmaceutical Sciences,2021,30(7):590-597.
[5] 张萍萍,朱虹,刘兰茹,等.基于靶向药物的医保药品谈判实践研究[J].中国卫生事业管理,2016,33(4):275-278.
[6] 郑金坡,田羿,柳俊杰,等.GHS-DRG付费模式在肿瘤专科医院的实践与思考[J].现代医院管理,2023,21(5):73-75.
[7] 张丽成,高明,冷家骅.DRG组恶性肿瘤靶向、免疫治疗支付管理调查研究[J].中国医院管理,2025,45(2):50-52.
[8] 闫晓婧,于丽华,周海龙,等.恶性肿瘤药物治疗的DRG分组方案研究[J].中国卫生经济,2021,40(7):40-43.
[9] 孙维帅,田羿,柳俊杰,等.CHS-DRG分组方案评价及优化研究:以恶性肿瘤药物治疗为例[J].中国医疗保险,2023(8):70-75.
[10] 韩进松,吕传爱.DRG付费下异地与本地住院患者就医费用分析:基于某肿瘤医院的实证分析[J].中国医疗保险,2023(1):55-58.
[11] 方欣,田梦媛,张欲晓,等.药品不同准入价格对医保基金及个人可负担性的影响:以部分抗肿瘤靶向药物为例[J].中国卫生政策研究,2016,9(11):40-44.
[12] 汪洋,孙蓓,李梦奇,等.效率医疗背景下靶向药物皮下制剂在乳腺癌患者中的应用及展望[J].临床肿瘤学杂志,2024,29(5):499-503.
[13] 柳嘉玮,徐思露,张倩,等.DRG低倍率病例的特征、产生原因与优化建议:以肿瘤专科医院RG13分组为例[J].药学与临床研究,2023,31(4):369-373.
[14] 罗石梅,郭小红,周迎迎.DRG支付方式下某肿瘤医院高倍率病例分析[J].江苏卫生事业管理,2023,34(7):945-948+953.
[15] 李娜. DRG背景下基于多准则决策分析的高值抗肿瘤药品价值评估体系构建和应用研究[D].福州:福建医科大学,2023.
[16] 刘媛,侯旭敏,汪刚,等.5种靶向药物的基本医疗保险政策改变对非小细胞肺癌靶向药物费用的影响[J].中国卫生资源,2022,25(3):310-314.
[17] 宗舒淇,陈李杰,王少君,等.医药创新DRG除外支付的浙江实践[J].中国医疗保险,2026(3):5-11.
[18] 侯晓慧,李芬,覃湫珺,等.DRG/DIP改革下特例单议“绿色通道”的探索与思考:以上海为例[J].中国医疗保险,2026(3):12-19.
[19] 林茂伟,余丹.DIP付费下肿瘤病种药品辅助目录与日间化疗支付政策研究[J].中国医疗保险,2024(9):64-69.