M Jegers1, D L Edbrooke, C L Hibbert, D B Chalfin, H Burchardi. 1. Faculty of Economic, Social and Political Sciences, Microeconomics of the profit and non-profit sectors, Free University Brussels (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. Marc.Jegers@vub.ac.be
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define the different types of costs incurred in the care of critically ill patients and to describe some of the most commonly used methods for measuring and allocating these costs. DESIGN: Literature review. Definitions for opportunity, direct and indirect, fixed, variable, marginal, and total costs are described and interpreted in the context of the critical care setting. Two main methods of costing are described: the 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' methods together with a number of cost proxies, such as the use of weighted hospital days, diagnosis-related groups, severity and activity scores, and effective costs per survivor. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment and allocation of costs to critically ill patients is complex and as a result of the different definitions and methods used, meaningful comparisons between studies are plagued with difficulty. When undertaking a study looking to measure costs, it is important to state: (a) the aim of the cost assessment study; (b) the perspective (point of view); (c) the type of costs that need to be measured; and (d) the time span of assessment. By being explicit about the rationale of the study and the methods used, it is hoped that the results of economic evaluations will be better understood, and hence implemented within the critical care setting.
OBJECTIVE: To define the different types of costs incurred in the care of critically illpatients and to describe some of the most commonly used methods for measuring and allocating these costs. DESIGN: Literature review. Definitions for opportunity, direct and indirect, fixed, variable, marginal, and total costs are described and interpreted in the context of the critical care setting. Two main methods of costing are described: the 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' methods together with a number of cost proxies, such as the use of weighted hospital days, diagnosis-related groups, severity and activity scores, and effective costs per survivor. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment and allocation of costs to critically illpatients is complex and as a result of the different definitions and methods used, meaningful comparisons between studies are plagued with difficulty. When undertaking a study looking to measure costs, it is important to state: (a) the aim of the cost assessment study; (b) the perspective (point of view); (c) the type of costs that need to be measured; and (d) the time span of assessment. By being explicit about the rationale of the study and the methods used, it is hoped that the results of economic evaluations will be better understood, and hence implemented within the critical care setting.
Authors: Romain Hernu; Martin Cour; Sylvie de la Salle; Dominique Robert; Laurent Argaud Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Michelle R Ananda-Rajah; Allen Cheng; C Orla Morrissey; Tim Spelman; Michael Dooley; A Munro Neville; Monica Slavin Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: David Suarez; Ricard Ferrer; Antonio Artigas; Izaskun Azkarate; José Garnacho-Montero; Gemma Gomà; Mitchell M Levy; Juan Carlos Ruiz Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-12-09 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Ana M C Sogayar; Flavia R Machado; Alvaro Rea-Neto; Amselmo Dornas; Cintia M C Grion; Suzana M A Lobo; Bernardo R Tura; Carla L O Silva; Ruy G R Cal; Idal Beer; Vilto Michels; Jorge Safi; Marcia Kayath; Eliezer Silva Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.981