Research Article

The impact of using different costing methods on the results of an economic evaluation of cardiac care: microcosting vs gross-costing approaches

  1. Fiona M. Clement (Nee Shrive)1,3,
  2. William A. Ghali1,2,3,
  3. Cam Donaldson4,
  4. Braden J. Manns1,2,3,*

Article first published online: 10 JUL 2008

DOI: 10.1002/hec.1363

Issue

Health Economics

Health Economics

Volume 18, Issue 4, pages 377–388, April 2009

Additional Information

How to Cite

Clement (Nee Shrive), F. M., Ghali, W. A., Donaldson, C. and Manns, B. J. (2009), The impact of using different costing methods on the results of an economic evaluation of cardiac care: microcosting vs gross-costing approaches. Health Economics, 18: 377–388. doi: 10.1002/hec.1363

Author Information

  1. 1

    Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta., Canada

  2. 2

    Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta., Canada

  3. 3

    Centre for Health and Policy Studies, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta., Canada

  4. 4

    Institute of Health and Society and Business School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

*Foothills Medical Centre, 1403 29th St. NW Calgary, Alta., Canada T2N 2T9

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 5 MAR 2009
  2. Article first published online: 10 JUL 2008
  3. Manuscript Accepted: 20 MAR 2008
  4. Manuscript Revised: 2 NOV 2007
  5. Manuscript Received: 12 JUL 2006

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

Get PDF (267K)

Keywords:

  • costing;
  • economic evaluation;
  • case-mix groupers;
  • microcosting;
  • gross costing

Abstract

Background: Published guidelines on the conduct of economic evaluations provide little guidance regarding the use and potential bias of the different costing methods.

Objectives: Using microcosting and two gross-costing methods, we (1) compared the cost estimates within and across subjects, and (2) determined the impact on the results of an economic evaluation.

Methods: Microcosting estimates were obtained from the local health region and gross-costing estimates were obtained from two government bodies (one provincial and one national). Total inpatient costs were described for each method. Using an economic evaluation of sirolimus-eluting stents, we compared the incremental cost–utility ratios that resulted from applying each method.

Results: Microcosting, Case-Mix-Grouper (CMG) gross-costing, and Refined-Diagnosis-Related grouper (rDRG) gross-costing resulted in 4-year mean cost estimates of $16 684, $16 232, and $10 474, respectively. Using Monte Carlo simulation, the cost per QALY gained was $41 764 (95% CI: $41 182–$42 346), $42 538 (95% CI: $42 167–$42 907), and $36 566 (95% CI: $36 172–$36 960) for microcosting, rDRG-derived and CMG-derived estimates, respectively (P<0.001).

Conclusions: Within subject, the three costing methods produced markedly different cost estimates. The difference in cost–utility values produced by each method is modest but of a magnitude that could influence a decision to fund a new intervention. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Get PDF (267K)