Search

Objectives: In 2000, the first "Dutch Manual for Costing: METHODS and Reference Prices for Economic Evaluations in Healthcare" was published, followed by an updated version in 2004. The purpose of the Manual is to facilitate the implementation and assessment of costing studies in economic evaluations. New developments necessitated the publication of a thoroughly updated version of the Manual in 2010. The present study aims to describe the main changes of the 2010 Manual compared with earlier editions of the Manual., Methods: New and updated topics of the Manual were identified. The recommendations of the Manual were compared with the health economic guidelines of other countries, eliciting strengths and limitations of alternative methods., Results: New topics in the Manual concern medical costs in life-years gained, the database of the Diagnosis Treatment Combination (DBC) casemix System, reference prices for the mental healthcare sector and the costs borne by informal care-givers. Updated topics relate to the friction cost method, discounting future effects and options for transferring cost results from international studies to the Dutch situation., Conclusions: The Action Plan is quite similar to many health economic guidelines in healthcare. However, the recommendations on particular aspects may differ between national guidelines in some respects. Although the Manual may serve as an example to countries intending to develop a manual of this kind, it should always be kept in mind that preferred methods predominantly depend on a country's specific context.

Background: The effectiveness of collaborative care for patients with major depressive disorder in primary care has been established. Assessing its cost-effectiveness is important for deciding on implementation. This review therefore evaluates the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care., Methods: A systematic search on economic evaluations of collaborative care was conducted in Pubmed and PsychInfo. Quality of the studies was measured with the Cochrane checklist and the CHEC-list for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness and costs per depression-free days were reported., Results: 8 studies were found, involving 4868 patients. The quality of the cost effectiveness studies, according to the CHEC-list, could be improved. Generally, the studies did not include all relevant costs and did not perform sensitivity analysis. Only 4 out of 8 studies reported cost per QALY, 6 out of 8 reported costs per depression-free days. The highest costs per QALY reported were $49,500, the highest costs per depression-free day were $24., Conclusions: Although studies did not fulfil all criteria of the CHEC-list, collaborative care is a promising intervention and it may be cost-effective. However, to conclude on the cost-effectiveness, depression research should follow economic guidelines to improve the quality of the economic evaluations.

Background: Increasing costs have generated concern among governments and healthcare providers who have realized the need for cost containment measures and more efficient resource utilization. Health economics is one potential source of information that can make healthcare more efficient., Scope: This review article summarizes the published literature on self-reported attitudes of healthcare decision-makers towards economic evaluations of medical technologies and examines the extent to which economic evaluations are used in health policy decisions., Methods: A systematic literature review of published English language studies was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and HEED from January 1995 to December 2007., Findings: Fifty-five articles investigated the use of economic evaluations on three levels of decision-making: central, local, and physician level. Results indicate the use of economic evaluation information increased from limited/minor to moderate use. The influence of economic evaluations increased with the level of centralization of healthcare system. Barriers to use health economics research varied across levels and included health economics research-related barriers such as timely availability, lack of credibility, insufficient methodological quality and decision-context-related barriers including limited decision makers' knowledge, inflexibility in healthcare budgets and variability among healthcare organizations., Conclusions: For consistent policy-making it is important that similar recommendations for cost-effective interventions and programs are developed at all levels and that implementation is promoted by incorporating the appropriate incentives in healthcare provision.

Dental fillings represent an established procedure to treat tooth decay. The present paper provides a cost comparison of dental filling procedures across nine European countries. More specifically, the paper aims to estimate the costs and prices (i.e. reimbursement fees) of a single dental filling procedure in an approximately 12-year-old child with a toothache in a lower molar who presents at a dental practice, as described in a case vignette. Both amalgam and composite fillings were examined. Total costs were determined by identifying resource use and unit costs for the following cost components: diagnostic procedures, labour, materials, drugs, and overheads. Altogether, 49 practices provided data for the cost calculations. Mean total costs per country varied considerably, ranging from 8 euros to 156 euros. Labour costs were the most important cost driver in all practices, comprising 58% of total costs. Overhead costs were the second-most important cost component in the majority of countries. Actual cost differences across practices within countries were relatively small. Cost variations between countries were primarily due to differences in unit costs, especially for labour and overheads, and only to a lesser extent to differences in resource use. Finally, cost estimates for a single dental filling procedure based on reimbursement fees led to an underestimation of the total costs by approximately 50%., (Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Which costs and benefits to consider in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions remains an area of much controversy. Unrelated medical costs in life-years gained is an important cost category that is normally ignored in economic evaluations, irrespective of the perspective chosen for the analysis. National guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research largely endorse this practice, either by explicitly requiring researchers to exclude these costs from the analysis or by leaving inclusion or exclusion up to the discretion of the analyst. However, the inclusion of unrelated medical costs in life-years gained appears to be gaining support in the literature.This article provides an overview of the discussions to date. The inclusion of unrelated medical costs in life-years gained seems warranted, in terms of both optimality and internal and external consistency. We use an example of a smoking-cessation intervention to highlight the consequences of different practices of accounting for costs and effects in economic evaluations. Only inclusion of all costs and effects of unrelated medical care in life-years gained can be considered both internally and externally consistent. Including or excluding unrelated future medical costs may have important distributional consequences, especially for interventions that substantially increase length of life. Regarding practical objections against inclusion of future costs, it is important to note that it is becoming increasingly possible to accurately estimate unrelated medical costs in life-years gained. We therefore conclude that the inclusion of unrelated medical costs should become the new standard.

The lack of a uniform costing methodology is often considered a weakness of economic evaluations that hinders the interpretation and comparison of studies. Standardisation is therefore an important topic within the methodology of economic evaluations and in national guidelines that formulate the formal requirements for studies to be considered when deciding on the reimbursement of new medical therapies. Recently, the Dutch Manual for Costing: Methods and Standard Costs for Economic Evaluations in Health Care (further referred to as "the manual") has been published, in addition to the Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. The objectives of this article are to describe the main content of the manual and to discuss some key issues of the manual in relation to the standardisation of costs. The manual introduces a six-step procedure for costing. These steps concern: the scope of the study;the choice of cost categories;the identification of units;the measurement of resource use;the monetary valuation of units; andthe calculation of unit costs. Each step consists of a number of choices and these together define the approach taken. In addition to a description of the costing process, five key issues regarding the standardisation of costs are distinguished. These are the use of basic principles, methods for measurement and valuation, standard costs (average prices of healthcare services), standard values (values that can be used within unit cost calculations), and the reporting of outcomes. The use of the basic principles, standard values and minimal requirements for reporting outcomes, as defined in the manual, are obligatory in studies that support submissions to acquire reimbursement for new pharmaceuticals. Whether to use standard costs, and the choice of a particular method to measure or value costs, is left mainly to the investigator, depending on the specific study setting. In conclusion, several instruments are available to increase standardisation in costing methodology among studies. These instruments have to be used in such a way that a balance is found between standardisation and the specific setting in which a study is performed. The way in which the Dutch manual tries to reach this balance can serve as an illustration for other countries.