Covert checks by standardised patients of general practitioners' delivery of new periodic health examinations: clustered cross-sectional study from a consumer organisation

Piribauer, Franz; Thaler, Kylie; Harris, Mark F

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000744

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Method DE, following the German approach, takes on a public payer perspective and consequently a societal perspective 49 excluding patient copayments. The same applies to method NL.…”

Section: 8mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Unit Costs the Same? A Case Study Comparing Different Valuation Methods for Unit Cost Calculation of General Practitioner Consultations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To inform allocation decisions in any healthcare system, robust cost data are indispensable. Nevertheless, recommendations on the most appropriate valuation approaches vary or are nonexistent, and no internationally accepted gold standard exists. This costing analysis exercise aims to assess the impact and implications of different calculation methods and sources based on the unit cost of general practitioner (GP) consultations in Austria.Methods: Six costing methods for unit cost calculation were explored, following 3 Austrian methodological approaches (AT-1, AT-2, AT-3) and 3 approaches applied in 3 other European countries (Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom). Drawing on Austrian data, mean unit costs per GP consultation were calculated in euros for 2015.Results: Mean unit costs ranged from V15.6 to V42.6 based on the German top-down costing approach (DE) and the Austrian Physicians' Chamber's price recommendations (AT-3), respectively. The mean unit cost was estimated at V18.9 based on Austrian economic evaluations (AT-1) and V17.9 based on health insurance payment tariffs (AT-2). The Dutch top-down (NL) and the UK bottom-up approaches (UK) yielded higher estimates (NL: V25.3, UK: V29.8). Overall variation reached 173%.Conclusions: Our study is the first to systematically investigate the impact of differing calculation methods on unit cost estimates. It shows large variations with potential impact on the conclusions in an economic evaluation. Although different methodological choices may be justified by the adopted study perspective, different costing approaches introduce variation in cross-study/cross-country cost estimates, leading to decreased confidence in data quality in economic evaluations.

show abstract

“…Method DE, following the German approach, takes on a public payer perspective and consequently a societal perspective 49 excluding patient copayments. The same applies to method NL.…”

Section: 8mentioning

confidence: 99%