Siok Swan Tan1, Alexander Geissler2, Lisbeth Serdén3, Mona Heurgren3, B Martin van Ineveld4, W Ken Redekop4, Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen. 1. 1 Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands tan@bmg.eur.nl. 2. 2 Department of Health Care Management, Berlin University of Technology, Berlin, Germany. 3. 3 National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. 1 Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based hospital payment systems have gradually become the principal means of reimbursing hospitals in many European countries. Owing to the absence or inaccuracy of costs related to DRGs, these countries have started to routinely collect cost accounting data. The aim of the present article was to compare the cost accounting systems of 12 European countries. METHODS: A standardized questionnaire was developed to guide comprehensive cost accounting system descriptions for each of the 12 participating countries. RESULTS: The cost accounting systems of European countries vary widely by the share of hospital costs reimbursed through DRG payment, the presence of mandatory cost accounting and/or costing guidelines, the share of cost collecting hospitals, costing methods and data checks on reported cost data. Each of these aspects entails a trade-off between accuracy of the cost data and feasibility constraints. CONCLUSION: Although a 'best' cost accounting system does not exist, our cross-country comparison gives insight into international differences and may help regulatory authorities and hospital managers to identify and improve areas of weakness in their cost accounting systems. Moreover, it may help health policymakers to underpin the development of a cost accounting system.
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based hospital payment systems have gradually become the principal means of reimbursing hospitals in many European countries. Owing to the absence or inaccuracy of costs related to DRGs, these countries have started to routinely collect cost accounting data. The aim of the present article was to compare the cost accounting systems of 12 European countries. METHODS: A standardized questionnaire was developed to guide comprehensive cost accounting system descriptions for each of the 12 participating countries. RESULTS: The cost accounting systems of European countries vary widely by the share of hospital costs reimbursed through DRG payment, the presence of mandatory cost accounting and/or costing guidelines, the share of cost collecting hospitals, costing methods and data checks on reported cost data. Each of these aspects entails a trade-off between accuracy of the cost data and feasibility constraints. CONCLUSION: Although a 'best' cost accounting system does not exist, our cross-country comparison gives insight into international differences and may help regulatory authorities and hospital managers to identify and improve areas of weakness in their cost accounting systems. Moreover, it may help health policymakers to underpin the development of a cost accounting system.
Authors: Nina Weiler; Andreas Schlotmann; Andreas Anton Schnitzbauer; Stefan Zeuzem; Martin-Walter Welker Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Gunnar Plehn; Thomas Butz; Petra Maagh; Ahmet Oernek; Axel Meissner; Natalie Plehn Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 2.175
Authors: Zuzana Kotherová; Martina Caithamlová; Juraj Nemec; Kateřina Dolejšová Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Susanne Mayer; Michael Berger; Alexander Konnopka; Valentin Brodszky; Silvia M A A Evers; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen; Mencia R Guitérrez-Colosia; Luis Salvador-Carulla; A-La Park; William Hollingworth; Lidia García-Pérez; Judit Simon Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 3.390