Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: The objective of the present study was to measure and compare the direct costs of intensive care unit (ICU) days at seven ICU departments in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom by means of a standardized costing methodology. Methods: A retrospective cost analysis of ICU patients was performed from the hospital''s perspective. The standardized costing methodology was developed on the basis of the availability of data at the seven ICU departments. It entailed the application of the bottom–up approach for “hotel and nutrition” and the top–down approach for “diagnostics,” “consumables,” and “labor.” Results: Direct costs per ICU day ranged from €1168 to €2025. Even though the distribution of costs varied by cost component, labor was the most important cost driver at all departments. The costs for “labor” amounted to €1629 at department G but were fairly similar at the other departments (€711 ± 115). Conclusions: Direct costs of ICU days vary widely between the seven departments. Our standardized costing methodology could serve as a valuable instrument to compare actual cost differences, such as those resulting from differences in patient case-mix. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Measuring objective resource-use quantities is important for generating valid cost estimates in economic evaluations. In the absence of acknowledged guidelines, measurement methods are often chosen based on practicality rather than methodological evidence. Furthermore, few resource-use measurement (RUM) instruments focus on the measurement of resource use in multiple societal sectors and their development process is rarely described. Thorn and colleagues proposed a stepwise approach to the development of RUM instruments, which has been used for developing cost questionnaires for specific trials. However, it remains unclear how this approach can be translated into practice and whether it is applicable to the development of generic self-reported RUM instruments and instruments measuring resource use in multiple sectors. This study provides a detailed description of the practical application of this stepwise approach to the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument developed within the ProgrammE in Costing, resource use measurement and outcome valuation for Use in multi-sectoral National and International health economic evaluAtions (PECUNIA) project., Methods: For the development of the PECUNIA RUM, the methodological approach was based on best practice guidelines. The process included six steps, including the definition of the instrument attributes, identification of cost-driving elements in each sector, review of methodological literature and development of a harmonized cross-sectorial approach, development of questionnaire modules and their subsequent harmonization., Results: The selected development approach was, overall, applicable to the development of the PECUNIA RUM. However, due to the complexity of the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument, additional steps such as establishing a uniform methodological basis, harmonization of questionnaire modules and involvement of a broader range of stakeholders (healthcare professionals, sector-specific experts, health economists) were needed., Conclusion: This is the first study that transparently describes the development process of a generic multi-sectoral RUM instrument in health economics and provides insights into the methodological aspects and overall validity of its development process., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Preference differences between countries and populations justify the use of country-specific value sets for the EQ-5D instruments. There are no clear criteria based on which the selection of value sets for countries without a national value set should be made. As part of the European PECUNIA project, this study aimed to identify factors contributing to differences in preference-based valuations and develop supra-national value sets for homogenous country clusters in Europe., Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify factors relevant to variations in the EQ-5D-3L/5L health state valuations across countries. Factors fulfilling the pre-specified criteria of validity, reliability, international feasibility and comparability were used to group 27 European Union member states, the European Free Trade Association countries and the UK. Clusters of countries were developed based on the frequency of their appearance in the same grouping. The supra-national value sets were estimated for these clusters from the coefficients of existing published valuation studies using the ordinary least-squares model., Results: Ten factors were identified from 69 studies. From these, five grouping variables: (1) culture and religion; (2) linguistics; (3) healthcare system typology; (4) healthcare system financing; and (5) sociodemographic aspects were derived to define the groups of homogenous countries. Frequency-based grouping revealed five cohesive clusters: English-speaking, Nordic, Central-Western, Southern and Eastern European., Conclusions: European countries were clustered considering variables that may relate to differences in health state valuations. Supra-national value sets provide optimised proxy value set selection in the lack of a national value set and/or for regional decision making., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Improving the efficiency of mental healthcare service delivery by learning from international best-practice examples requires valid data, including robust unit costs, which currently often lack cross-country comparability. The European ProgrammE in Costing, resource use measurement and outcome valuation for Use in multi-sectoral National and International health economic evaluAtions (PECUNIA) aimed to harmonize the international unit cost development. This article presents the methodology and set of 36 externally validated, standardized reference unit costs (RUCs) for five health and social care services (general practitioner, dentist, help-line, day-care center, nursing home) in Austria, England, Germany, Hungary, The Netherlands, and Spain based on unambiguous service definitions using the extended DESDE PECUNIA coding framework. The resulting PECUNIA RUCs are largely comparable across countries, with any causes for deviations (e.g., country-specific scope of services) transparently documented. Even under standardized methods, notable limitations due to data-driven divergences in key costing parameters remain. Increased cross-country comparability by adopting a uniform methodology and definitions can advance the quality of evidence-based policy guidance derived from health economic evaluations. The PECUNIA RUCs are available free of charge and aim to significantly improve the quality and feasibility of future economic evaluations and their transferability across mental health systems.