The impact of using different costing methods on the results of an economic evaluation of cardiac care: microcosting vs gross-costing approaches

Fiona Clement, William A. Ghali, Cam Donaldson, Braden J. Manns

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Published guidelines on the conduct of economic evaluations provide little guidance regarding the use and potential bias of the different costing methods. Using microcosting and two gross-costing methods, we (1) compared the cost estimates within and across subjects, and (2) determined the impact on the results of an economic evaluation. Microcosting estimates were obtained from the local health region and gross-costing estimates were obtained from two government bodies (one provincial and one national). Total inpatient costs were described for each method. Using an economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents, we compared the incremental cost–utility ratios that resulted from applying each method.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)377-388
Number of pages12
JournalHealth Economics
Volume18
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2009

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Sirolimus
Stents
Inpatients
Guidelines
Health

Keywords

  • costing methods
  • cardiac care
  • health economics

Cite this

@article{14a62b18591f4b8aa8a7e92f75190259,
title = "The impact of using different costing methods on the results of an economic evaluation of cardiac care: microcosting vs gross-costing approaches",
abstract = "Published guidelines on the conduct of economic evaluations provide little guidance regarding the use and potential bias of the different costing methods. Using microcosting and two gross-costing methods, we (1) compared the cost estimates within and across subjects, and (2) determined the impact on the results of an economic evaluation. Microcosting estimates were obtained from the local health region and gross-costing estimates were obtained from two government bodies (one provincial and one national). Total inpatient costs were described for each method. Using an economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents, we compared the incremental cost–utility ratios that resulted from applying each method.",
keywords = "costing methods, cardiac care, health economics",
author = "Fiona Clement and Ghali, {William A.} and Cam Donaldson and Manns, {Braden J.}",
note = "<p>Originally published in: Health Economics (2009), 18 (4), pp.377-388.</p>",
year = "2009",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/hec.1363",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "377--388",
journal = "Health Economics",
issn = "1057-9230",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",
number = "4",

}

The impact of using different costing methods on the results of an economic evaluation of cardiac care: microcosting vs gross-costing approaches. / Clement, Fiona; Ghali, William A.; Donaldson, Cam; Manns, Braden J.

In: Health Economics, Vol. 18, No. 4, 01.04.2009, p. 377-388.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of using different costing methods on the results of an economic evaluation of cardiac care: microcosting vs gross-costing approaches

AU - Clement, Fiona

AU - Ghali, William A.

AU - Donaldson, Cam

AU - Manns, Braden J.

N1 - <p>Originally published in: Health Economics (2009), 18 (4), pp.377-388.</p>

PY - 2009/4/1

Y1 - 2009/4/1

N2 - Published guidelines on the conduct of economic evaluations provide little guidance regarding the use and potential bias of the different costing methods. Using microcosting and two gross-costing methods, we (1) compared the cost estimates within and across subjects, and (2) determined the impact on the results of an economic evaluation. Microcosting estimates were obtained from the local health region and gross-costing estimates were obtained from two government bodies (one provincial and one national). Total inpatient costs were described for each method. Using an economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents, we compared the incremental cost–utility ratios that resulted from applying each method.

AB - Published guidelines on the conduct of economic evaluations provide little guidance regarding the use and potential bias of the different costing methods. Using microcosting and two gross-costing methods, we (1) compared the cost estimates within and across subjects, and (2) determined the impact on the results of an economic evaluation. Microcosting estimates were obtained from the local health region and gross-costing estimates were obtained from two government bodies (one provincial and one national). Total inpatient costs were described for each method. Using an economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents, we compared the incremental cost–utility ratios that resulted from applying each method.

KW - costing methods

KW - cardiac care

KW - health economics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-67249142780&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/hec.1363

DO - 10.1002/hec.1363

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 377

EP - 388

JO - Health Economics

JF - Health Economics

SN - 1057-9230

IS - 4

ER -