Kevin D Frick1. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Health Services Research and Development Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205-1901, USA. kfrick@jhsph.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microcosting studies collect detailed data on resources used and the value of those resources. Such studies are useful for estimating the cost of new technologies or new community-based interventions, for producing estimates in studies that include nonmarket goods, and for studying within-procedure cost variation. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article were to (1) describe basic microcosting methods focusing on quantity data collection; and (2) suggest a research agenda to improve methods in and the interpretation of microcosting. RESEARCH DESIGN: Examples in the published literature were used to illustrate steps in the methods of gathering data (primarily quantity data) for a microcosting study. RESULTS: Quantity data collection methods that were illustrated in the literature include the use of (1) administrative databases at single facilities, (2) insurer administrative data, (3) forms applied across multiple settings, (4) an expert panel, (5) surveys or interviews of one or more types of providers; (6) review of patient charts, (7) direct observation, (8) personal digital assistants, (9) program operation logs, and (10) diary data. CONCLUSIONS: Future microcosting studies are likely to improve if research is done to compare the validity and cost of different data collection methods; if a critical review is conducted of studies done to date; and if the combination of the results of the first 2 steps described are used to develop guidelines that address common limitations, critical judgment points, and decisions that can reduce limitations and improve the quality of studies.
BACKGROUND: Microcosting studies collect detailed data on resources used and the value of those resources. Such studies are useful for estimating the cost of new technologies or new community-based interventions, for producing estimates in studies that include nonmarket goods, and for studying within-procedure cost variation. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article were to (1) describe basic microcosting methods focusing on quantity data collection; and (2) suggest a research agenda to improve methods in and the interpretation of microcosting. RESEARCH DESIGN: Examples in the published literature were used to illustrate steps in the methods of gathering data (primarily quantity data) for a microcosting study. RESULTS: Quantity data collection methods that were illustrated in the literature include the use of (1) administrative databases at single facilities, (2) insurer administrative data, (3) forms applied across multiple settings, (4) an expert panel, (5) surveys or interviews of one or more types of providers; (6) review of patient charts, (7) direct observation, (8) personal digital assistants, (9) program operation logs, and (10) diary data. CONCLUSIONS: Future microcosting studies are likely to improve if research is done to compare the validity and cost of different data collection methods; if a critical review is conducted of studies done to date; and if the combination of the results of the first 2 steps described are used to develop guidelines that address common limitations, critical judgment points, and decisions that can reduce limitations and improve the quality of studies.
Authors: Garry R Barton; Karen E Bloor; David H Marshall; A Quentin Summerfield Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: J Ruof; J L Hülsemann; T Mittendorf; S Handelmann; J M von der Schulenburg; H Zeidler; S Merkesdal Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Fiona Lobban; Nadia Akers; Duncan Appelbe; Rossella Iraci Capuccinello; Lesley Chapman; Lizzi Collinge; Susanna Dodd; Sue Flowers; Bruce Hollingsworth; Mahsa Honary; Sonia Johnson; Steven H Jones; Ceu Mateus; Barbara Mezes; Elizabeth Murray; Katerina Panagaki; Naomi Rainford; Heather Robinson; Anna Rosala-Hallas; William Sellwood; Andrew Walker; Paula R Williamson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Ram K Shrestha; Stephanie L Sansom; Benjamin T Laffoon; Paul G Farnham; R Luke Shouse; Karen MacMaster; H Irene Hall Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Richard T Meenan; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Sally W Vernon; Sharon Fuller; Ching-Yun Wang; Beverly B Green Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Alene Toulany; Matthew Wong; Debra K Katzman; Nadia Akseer; Cathleen Steinegger; Rebecca L Hancock-Howard; Peter C Coyte Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2015-04-02
Authors: Lorraine T Dean; Madeline C Montgomery; Julia Raifman; Amy Nunn; Thomas Bertrand; Alexi Almonte; Philip A Chan Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 5.043