PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 443–454

Standardisation of Costs

The Dutch Manual for Costing in Economic Evaluations
  • Jan B. Oostenbrink
  • Marc A. Koopmanschap
  • Frans F. H. Rutten
Review Article

Abstract

The lack of a uniform costing methodology is often considered a weakness of economic evaluations that hinders the interpretation and comparison of studies. Standardisation is therefore an important topic within the methodology of economic evaluations and in national guidelines that formulate the formal requirements for studies to be considered when deciding on the reimbursement of new medical therapies. Recently, the Dutch Manual for Costing: Methods and Standard Costs for Economic Evaluations in Health Care (further referred to as ‘the manual’) has been published, in addition to the Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. The objectives of this article are to describe the main content of the manual and to discuss some key issues of the manual in relation to the standardisation of costs.

The manual introduces a six-step procedure for costing. These steps concern: (i) the scope of the study; (ii) the choice of cost categories; (iii) the identification of units; (iv) the measurement of resource use; (v) the monetary valuation of units; and (vi) the calculation of unit costs. Each step consists of a number of choices and these together define the approach taken. In addition to a description of the costing process, five key issues regarding the standardisation of costs are distinguished. These are the use of basic principles, methods for measurement and valuation, standard costs (average prices of healthcare services), standard values (values that can be used within unit cost calculations), and the reporting of outcomes. The use of the basic principles, standard values and minimal requirements for reporting outcomes, as defined in the manual, are obligatory in studies that support submissions to acquire reimbursement for new pharmaceuticals. Whether to use standard costs, and the choice of a particular method to measure or value costs, is left mainly to the investigator, depending on the specific study setting.

In conclusion, several instruments are available to increase standardisation in costing methodology among studies. These instruments have to be used in such a way that a balance is found between standardisation and the specific setting in which a study is performed. The way in which the Dutch manual tries to reach this balance can serve as an illustration for other countries.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies: recommendations from the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11: 159–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haycox A, Walley T. Pharmacoeconomics: evaluating the evaluators. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 43: 451–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drummond MF, Brandt A, Luce BR, et al. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9 (1): 26–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rovira J. Standardization of the economic evaluation of health technologies, European developments. Med Care 1996; 34 (12 Suppl.): DS182–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mason J. The generalisability of pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11 (6): 503-14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. 1st ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langley PC. The November 1995 revised Australian guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 (4): 341–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Torrance GW, Blaker D, Detsky A, et al. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 (6): 535–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacobs P, Bachynsky J, Baladi J-F. A comparative review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (3): 182–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rovira J, Antonanzas F. Economic analysis of health technologies and programmes. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (3): 245–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services. Manual of resource items and their associated costs. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services, 1993Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baladi JF. A guidance document for the costing process. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 1996Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Manual for costing: methods and standard costs for economic evaluations in health care [in Dutch]. Amstelveen: College voor zorgverzekeringen, 2000Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Riteco JA, de Heij LJM, van Luijn JCF, et al. Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. Amstelveen: College Voor Zorgverzekeringen, 1999Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jacobs P, Baladi J-F. Biases in cost measurement for economic evaluation studies in health care. Health Econ 1996; 5: 525–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goeree R, Gafni A, Hannah M, et al. Hospital selection for unit cost estimates in multicentre economic evaluations; does the choice of hospitals make a difference. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 561–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horngren CT. Cost accounting. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1982Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dutch Ministry of Finance. Textbook financial governmental information and administration. The Hague: Dutch Ministry of Finance, 1995Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 1997Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, 1995Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Patient and informal caregiver time in cost-effectiveness analysis: a response to the recommendations of the Washington Panel. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14 (3): 505–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johannesson M. Avoiding double-counting in pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11 (5): 385–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM. Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 1005–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Commissie Modernisering Curatieve Zorg. Gedeelde Zorg: Betere Zorg; Achtergrondstudies Van de Commissie Modernisering Curatieve Zorg. Roosendaal: Ammerlaan Pre-Press, 1994Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Groeneveld JF. Specialistenhonoraria. Medisch Contact 1996; 27: 919–21Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mason JA, Drummond MF. Reporting guidelines for economic studies. Health Econ 1995; 4: 85–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 1996; 276: 1339–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jacobs P, Roos NP. Standard cost lists for healthcare in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 551–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan B. Oostenbrink
    • 1
  • Marc A. Koopmanschap
    • 1
  • Frans F. H. Rutten
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations