PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15772871

Collecting unit cost data in multicentre studies. Creating comparable methods.

Abstract

International comparisons of health care systems and services have created increased interest in the comparability of cost results. This study compared top-down and bottom-up approaches to collecting unit cost data across centres in the context of examining the cost-effectiveness of dialysis therapy across Europe. The study tested whether health care technologies in different countries can be costed using consistent and transparent methods to increase the comparability of results. There was more agreement across the approaches for peritoneal dialysis than for than haemodialysis, with differences, respectively of Euro 91-1,687 vs. 333-7,314 per patient per year. Haemodialysis results showed greatest differences where dialysis units were integrated as part of larger hospitals. Deciding which approach to adopt depends largely on the technology. However, bottom-up costing should be considered for technologies with a large component of staff input or overheads, significant sharing of staff or facilities between technologies or patient groups and health care costing systems which do not routinely allocate costs to the intervention level. In these circumstances this costing approach could increase consistency and transparency and hence comparability of cost results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sarah Wordsworth, Anne Ludbrook, Fergus Caskey, Alison Macleod. 2005. Collecting unit cost data in multicentre studies. Creating comparable methods.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-004-0259-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Predicting costs of mental health care: a critical literature review.

BACKGROUND: Cost evaluation research in the mental health field is being increasingly recognized as a way to achieve a more effective deployment of scarce resources. However, there is a paucity of studies that seek to identify predictors of psychiatric service utilization and costs. This paper aims to critically review the published research in the field of psychiatric service utilization and costs, and discusses current methodological developments in this field. METHOD: Sixteen studies were identified and are critically reviewed. RESULTS: No single variable alone can explain variations in costs between patients; instead, a range of different clinical and non-clinical variables provides a greater explanation of cost variations. Having a history of previous psychiatric service use is the most consistent predictor of higher psychiatric costs. Only one study considers indirect costs incurred by users, their families and friends and society as a whole, with the remaining 15 studies focusing on direct mental health care costs. There is a lack of studies that consider the future psychiatric service utilization and costs of care of children and older people. The cross-validation of predictive models is not yet routine, with only four of the studies including a cross-validation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The predictive approach in mental health cost evaluation has relevance for both mental health policy and practice. However, there is a paucity of studies that focus on children, older people and indirect costs. Furthermore, there remain a number of methodological challenges to address.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗

The increasing cost of the basic foods required to promote health in Queensland.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the cost and availability of a standard basket of healthy food items (the Healthy Food Access Basket [HFAB]) in Queensland over time. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A series of four cross-sectional surveys (in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004) describing the cost and availability of foods in the HFAB over time. In the latest survey, 97 Queensland food stores across the five Australian Bureau of Statistics remoteness categories were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost comparisons for HFAB items by remoteness category for the 97 stores surveyed in 2004; changes in cost and availability of foods in the 81 stores surveyed since 2000; comparisons of food prices in the 56 stores surveyed in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004. RESULTS: In 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB was $395.28 a fortnight. The cost of the HFAB was 29.6% ($113.89) higher in "very remote" areas than in "major cities" (P < 0.001). Between 2001 and 2004, the Queensland mean cost of the HFAB increased by 14.0% ($48.45), while in very remote areas the cost increased by 18.0% ($76.93) (P < 0.001). Since 2000, the annualised per cent increase in cost of the HFAB has been higher than the increase in Consumer Price Index for food in Brisbane. The cost of healthy foods has risen more than the cost of some less nutritious foods, so that the latter are now relatively more affordable. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers, particularly those in very remote locations, need to pay substantially more for basic healthy foods than they did a few years ago. Higher prices are likely to be a barrier to good health among people of low socioeconomic status and other vulnerable groups. Interventions to make basic healthy food affordable and accessible to all would help reduce the high burden of chronic disease.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗