Table 1.

A comparison of DRG and DIP^a in China. Source: summarized by the author, with reference to Qian et al. (2021) and Lai et al. (2022)

	DRG	DIP
Patient classification rules	Develop 26 major diagnostic categories (MDCs)→divide each MDC into medical and surgical categories based on principal diagnosis or surgical procedure codes→define DRGs by considering patient characteristics, complications and comorbidities	Combinations of principal diagnosis ICD-10 codes and procedure ICD-9 CM codesb. Demographic factors not considered.
Number of groups	Hundreds (<1000)	≈13 000
Number of principal diagnoses in a group	Multiple	One for most groups
Data quality requirements	Higher than DIP	Lower than DRG
Payment modality	Payment rate for each case determined ex ante; total amount of payment capped by regional global budget.	Each group assigned with a certain number of ‘points’ reflecting its relative usage of resources; monetary value of each point determined ex post by regional global budget and city-wide point sum.

^aDIP practice varies across localities. The information presented in this table is mainly based on the practice of Guangzhou, one of the pioneer cities of the DIP innovation.

^bICD-10: International Classification of Diseases (10th edition). ICD-9 CM3: International Classification of Diseases (9th edition) Clinical Modifications.