Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A general framework for classifying costing methods for economic evaluation of health care

Abstract

According to the most traditional economic evaluation manuals, all “relevant” costs should be included in the economic analysis, taking into account factors such as the patient population, setting, location, year, perspective and time horizon. However, cost information may be designed for other purposes. Health care organisations may lack sophisticated accounting systems and consequently, health economists may be unfamiliar with cost accounting terminology, which may lead to discrepancy in terms used in the economic evaluation literature and management accountancy. This paper identifies new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care and critically comments on each included article. For better clarification of terminology, a pragmatic glossary of terms is proposed. A scoping review of English and Spanish language literature (2005–2018) was conducted to identify new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care. The databases PubMed, Scopus and EconLit were searched. A total of 21 studies were included yielding 43 costing analysis. The most common analysis was top-down micro-costing (49%), followed by top-down gross-costing (37%) and bottom-up micro-costing (14%). Resource data were collected prospectively in 12 top-down studies (32%). Hospital database was the most common way of collection of resource data (44%) in top-down gross-costing studies. In top-down micro-costing studies, the most resource use data collection was the combination of several methods (38%). In general, substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods were found. The convergence of top-down and bottom-up methods may be an important topic in the next decades.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Source: own elaboration

References

  1. 1.

    Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G.I., Torrance, G.W.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)

  2. 2.

    Mayer, S., Kiss, N., Łaszewska, A., Simon, J.: Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: a systematic review. PLoS One (2017). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183116

  3. 3.

    Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Petrou, S., Carswell, C., Moher, D., Greenberg, D., Augustovski, F., Briggs, A.H., Mauskopf, J., Loder, E.: Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. Eur. J. Health Econ. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0471-6

  4. 4.

    Ergun, F.A., Agirbas, I., Kuzu, I.: Activity-based costing for pathology examinations and comparison with the current pricing system in turkey. Turk. J. Pathol. (2013). https://doi.org/10.5146/tjpath.2013.01141

  5. 5.

    Tan, S.S., Rutten, F.F.H., Van Ineveld, B.M., Redekop, W.K., Hakkaart-Van Roijen, L.: Comparing methodologies for the cost estimation of hospital services. Eur. J. Health Econ. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-008-0101-x

  6. 6.

    Mogyorosy, Z., Smith, P.: The main methodological issues in costing health care services: a literature review. https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/rp7_Methodological_issues_in_costing_health_care_services.pdf (2005). Accessed 20 June 2018

  7. 7.

    Masters, S.: The introduction of capital charges in the NHS. J. Manag. Med. (1990). https://doi.org/10.1108/eb060559

  8. 8.

    Department of Health. Payment by Results: NHS Costing Manual. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216427/dh_132398.pdf (2011). Accessed 20 Feb 2019

  9. 9.

    Department of Health: Department of Health Group Accounting Manual 2017–2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/696294/2017-18_DH_GAM_-_March_18.pdf (2018). Accessed 20 Feb 2019

  10. 10.

    Cao, P., Toyabe, S.-I., Akazawa, K.: Development of a practical costing method for hospitals. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. (2006). https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.208.213

  11. 11.

    Chapko, M.K., Liu, C.F., Perkins, M., Li, Y.F., Fortney, J.C., Maciejewski, M.L.: Equivalence of two healthcare costing methods: bottom-up and top-down. Health Econ. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1422

  12. 12.

    Blumenthal, D.: Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. N. Engl. J. Med. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp0901592

  13. 13.

    Negrini, D., Kettle, A., Sheppard, L., Mills, G.H., Edbrooke, D.L.: The cost of a hospital ward in Europe: is there a methodology available to accurately measure the costs? J. Health Organ. Manag. (2004). https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260410548437

  14. 14.

    Mercier, G., Naro, G.: Costing hospital surgery services: the method matters. PLoS One (2014). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097290

  15. 15.

    Javid, M., Hadian, M., Ghaderi, H., Ghaffari, S., Salehi, M.: Application of the activity-based costing method for unit-cost calculation in a hospital. Glob. J. Health Sci. (2015). https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v8n1p165

  16. 16.

    Öker, F., Özyapc, H.: A new costing model in hospital management: time-driven activity-based costing system. Health Care Manag. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1097/HCM.0b013e31827ed898

  17. 17.

    Atkinson, A.A., Banker, R.D., Kaplan, R.S., Young, S.M.: Management Accounting. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2001)

  18. 18.

    Everaert, P., Anderson, S.R., Sarens, G., Levant, Y., Bruggeman, W.: Cost modeling in logistics using time-driven ABC. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810866977

  19. 19.

    Yarikkaya, E., Özekinci, S., Sargan, A., Erdoğan Durmuş, Ş., Yildiz, F.R.: A comparative study of activity-based costing vs current pricing system for pathology examinations at Okmeydani training and research hospital, Turkey. Turk. J. Pathol. (2017). https://doi.org/10.5146/tjpath.2016.01372

  20. 20.

    Kaplan, R.S., Anderson, S.R.: Time-driven activity-based costing. Harv. Bus. Rev. https://hbr.org/2004/11/time-driven-activity-based-costing (2004). Accessed 20 Mar 2019

  21. 21.

    Olsson, T.M.: Comparing top-down and bottom-up costing approaches for economic evaluation within social welfare. Eur. J. Health Econ. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0257-z

  22. 22.

    Hrifach, A., Brault, C., Couray-Targe, S., Badet, L., Guerre, P., Ganne, C., Serrier, H., Labeye, V., Farge, P., Colin, C.: Mixed method versus full top-down microcosting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group. Health Econ. Rev. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-016-0133-3

  23. 23.

    Arksey, H., O’Malley, L.: Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. Theory Pract. (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

  24. 24.

    Geue, C., Lewsey, J., Lorgelly, P., Govan, L., Hart, C., Briggs, A.: Spoilt for choice: implications of using alternative methods of costing hospital episode statistics. Health Econ. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1785

  25. 25.

    Clement, F.M., Ghali, W.A., Donaldson, C., Manns, B.J.: The impact of using different costing methods on the results of an economic evaluation of cardiac care: microcosting vs gross-costing approaches. Health Econ. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1363

  26. 26.

    Suthummanon, S., Omachonu, V.K., Akcin, M.: Applying activity-based costing to the nuclear medicine unit. Health Serv. Manag. Res. (2005). https://doi.org/10.1258/0951484054572538

  27. 27.

    Rajabi, A.: The role of activity based costing (ABC) system in governmental hospital services in Iran. Iran Red Crescent Med. J. 10(2), 89–94 (2008)

  28. 28.

    Alrashdan, A., Momani, A., Ababneh, T.: Activities identification for activity-based cost/management applications of the diagnostics outpatient procedures. J. Health Qual. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-1474.2011.00139.x

  29. 29.

    Yen-Ju Lin, B., Chao, T.H., Yao, Y., Tu, S.M., Wu, C.C., Chern, J.Y., Chao, S.H., Shaw, K.Y.: How can activity-based costing methodology be performed as a powerful tool to calculate costs and secure appropriate patient care? J. Med. Syst. (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-005-9010-z

  30. 30.

    Zarkin, G.A., Bray, J.W., Mitra, D., Cisler, R.A., Kivlahan, D.R.: Cost methodology of COMBINE. J. Stud. Alcohol (2005). https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2005.s15.50

  31. 31.

    de Carvalho Jericó, M., Castilho, V.: Cost management: the implementation of the activity-based costing method in central sterilizing services. Rev. Esc. Enfem. USP 44(3), 734–741 (2010)

  32. 32.

    Demeere, N., Stouthuysen, K., Roodhooft, F.: Time-driven activity-based costing in an outpatient clinic environment: development, relevance and managerial impact. Health Policy (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.05.003

  33. 33.

    Ismail, I., Wolff, S., Gronfier, A., Mutter, D., Swantröm, L.L.: A cost evaluation methodology for surgical technologies. Surg. Endosc. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3929-4

  34. 34.

    Venkatnarayan, K., Sankar, J., Deorari, A., Krishnan, A., Paul, V.K.: A micro-costing model of neonatal intensive care from a tertiary Indian unit: feasibility and implications for insurance. Indian Pediatr. 51(3), 215–217 (2014)

  35. 35.

    NHS Improvement: Patient-Level Costing Information Systems (PLICS) continued implementation (Acute). https://digital.nhs.uk/about-nhs-digital/corporate-information-and-documents/directions-and-data-provision-notices/mandatory-requests-from-nhs-improvement/patient-level-costing-information-systems-plics-continued-implementation-acute-(2018). Accessed 23 Feb 2019

  36. 36.

    Jacobs, J.C., Barnett, P.G.: Emergent challenges in determining costs for economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0465-1

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is a part of the Work Package 3 Developing a costing methodology and a core dataset of costs for facilitating cross border comparisons in economic evaluation framed in the IMPACT-HTA and sponsored by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant number 779312) and is conducted by the Andalusian School of Public Health (EASP). EASP team thanks Alistair McGuire, Wolfgang Greiner, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski and Valentina Katka Rupel for valuable comments and suggestions on earlier draft of the paper.

Funding

This study has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant agreement no. 779312.

Author information

Correspondence to Jaime Espín.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Špacírová, Z., Epstein, D., García-Mochón, L. et al. A general framework for classifying costing methods for economic evaluation of health care. Eur J Health Econ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01157-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Costing methodology
  • Economic evaluation
  • Top-down method
  • Bottom-up method
  • Micro-costing
  • Activity-based costing

JEL Classification

  • A12
  • I10