Managing quality of cost information in clinical costing: evidence across seven countries

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose is to assess the impact of clinical costing approaches on the quality of cost information in seven countries (Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal).Design/methodology/approachCosting practices in seven countries were analysed via questionnaires, interviews and relevant published material.FindingsAlthough clinical costing is intended to support a similar range of purposes, countries display considerable diversity in their approaches to costing in terms of the level of detail contained in regulatory guidance and the percentage of providers subject to such guidance for tariff setting. Guidance in all countries involves a mix of costing methods.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors propose a two-dimensional Materiality and Quality Score (2D MAQS) of costing systems that can support the complex trade-offs in managing the quality of cost information at both policy and provider level, and between financial and clinical concerns.Originality/valueThe authors explore the trade-offs between different dimensions of the quality (accuracy, decision relevance and standardization) and the cost of collecting and analysing cost information for disparate purposes.

The Cost and the Value of Stroke Care in Greece: Results from the SUN4P Study

“…We conducted a bottom-up cost analysis from the societal perspective [ 13 ], gathering resource utilization data on patients’ levels so that our calculations reflect actual cost consumption [ 14 ].…”

Developing time-driven activity-based costing at the national level to support policy recommendations for radiation oncology in Belgium

“…Studies evaluating the economics of radiotherapy (Barbieri et al, 2014;Defourny et al, 2016;Monten et al, 2017;Nguyen et al, 2016;Rahman et al, 2016) include a large proportion of studies that use a governmental perspective, focusing on reimbursement or charges instead of the cost of resources used. Despite the established importance of such cost data to inform payment systems (Chapman et al, 2013), cost evaluations of radiotherapy are scarce and insufficiently consider the care delivery costs incurred by hospitals (Defourny et al, 2016). The lack of attention to the costs for health care service providers is surprising, since inaccurate information on treatment costs may impact the quality of decision making on the allocation of scarce health care resources (e.g., undesirable treatment incentives).…”

Τhe Cost and the Value of Stroke Care in Greece: Results from the SUN4P Study

“…We conducted a bottom-up cost analysis from the societal perspective [13], gathering resource utilization data on patients' levels so that our calculations reflect actual cost consumption [14].…”