Suppr超能文献

单位成本相同吗?一项比较不同评估方法用于计算一般医生就诊单位成本的案例研究。

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

机构信息

Department of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Austrian Institute Health Technology Assessment, Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

Value Health. 2020 Sep;23(9):1142-1148. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.06.001. Epub 2020 Jul 27.

Abstract

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 €15.6 to €42.6 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 €18.9 based on Austrian economic evaluations (AT-1) and €17.9 based on health insurance payment tariffs (AT-2). The Dutch top-down (NL) and the UK bottom-up approaches (UK) yielded higher estimates (NL: €25.3, UK: €29.8). 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.

摘要

目的

为了在任何医疗保健系统中做出分配决策,需要有可靠的成本数据。然而,关于最合适的估值方法的建议却存在差异或不存在,并且没有国际公认的金标准。本成本分析旨在根据奥地利全科医生(GP)咨询的单位成本,评估不同计算方法和来源的影响和意义。

方法

探讨了六种单位成本计算方法,分别基于奥地利的三种方法(AT-1、AT-2、AT-3)和另外三个欧洲国家(德国、荷兰、英国)的三种方法。利用奥地利的数据,按欧元计算了 2015 年每例 GP 咨询的平均单位成本。

结果

基于德国自上而下的成本核算方法(DE)和奥地利医师协会的价格建议(AT-3),平均单位成本分别为 15.6 欧元和 42.6 欧元。基于奥地利经济评估(AT-1)的平均单位成本估计为 18.9 欧元,基于医疗保险支付费率(AT-2)的平均单位成本估计为 17.9 欧元。荷兰自上而下(NL)和英国自下而上(UK)的方法得出了更高的估计值(NL:25.3,UK:29.8)。总变异度达到 173%。

结论

本研究首次系统地调查了不同计算方法对单位成本估计的影响。它表明存在较大差异,可能会对经济评估的结论产生影响。虽然不同的方法选择可能是由所采用的研究视角决定的,但不同的成本核算方法会导致跨研究/跨国家的成本估计产生差异,从而降低经济评估中数据质量的可信度。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验