Mixed method versus full top-down microcosting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group

Background: The costing method used can change the results of economic evaluations. Choosing the appropriate method to assess the cost of organ recovery is an issue of considerable interest to health economists, hospitals, financial managers and policy makers in most developed countries. Objectives: The main objective of this study was to compare a mixed method, combining top-down microcosting and bottom-up microcosting versus full top-down microcosting to assess the cost of organ recovery in a French hospital group. The secondary objective was to describe the cost of kidney, liver and pancreas recovery from French databases using the mixed method. Methods: The resources consumed for each donor were identified and valued using the proposed mixed method and compared to the full top-down microcosting approach. Data on kidney, liver and pancreas recovery were collected from a medico-administrative French database for the years 2010 and 2011. Related cost data were recovered from the hospital cost accounting system database for 2010 and 2011. Statistical significance was evaluated at P < 0.05. Results: All the median costs for organ recovery differ significantly between the two costing methods (non-parametric test method; P < 0.01). Using the mixed method, the median cost for recovering kidneys was found to be €5155, liver recovery was €2528 and pancreas recovery was €1911. Using the full top-down microcosting method, median costs were found to be 21-36% lower than with the mixed method. Conclusion: The mixed method proposed appears to be a trade-off between feasibility and accuracy for the identification and valuation of cost components when calculating the cost of organ recovery in comparison to the full top-down microcosting approach

Molecular Evidence of Interhuman Transmission of Pneumocystis Pneumonia among Renal Transplant Recipients Hospitalized with HIV-Infected Patients

Molecular evidence indicates that P. jirovecii may be nosocomially transmitted to severely immunosuppressed patients

National cost study versus hospital cost accounting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group

Abstract Background The choice of cost data sources is crucial, because it influences the results of cost studies, decisions of hospital managers and ultimately national directives of policy makers. The main objective of this study was to compare a hospital cost accounting system in a French hospital group and the national cost study (ENC) considering the cost of organ recovery procedures. The secondary objective was to compare these approaches to the weighting method used in the ENC to assess organ recovery costs. Methods The resources consumed during the hospital stay and organ recovery procedure were identified and quantified retrospectively from hospital discharge abstracts and the national discharge abstract database. Identified items were valued using hospital cost accounting, followed by 2010–2011 ENC data, and then weighted using 2010–2011 ENC data. A Kruskal–Wallis test was used to determine whether at least two of the cost databases provided different results. Then, a Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the three cost databases. Results The costs assessed using hospital cost accounting differed significantly from those obtained using the ENC data (Mann–Whitney; P-value < 0.001). In the ENC, the mean costs for hospital stays and organ recovery procedures were determined to be €4961 (SD €7295) and €862 (SD €887), respectively, versus €12,074 (SD €6956) and €4311 (SD €1738) for the hospital cost accounting assessment. The use of a weighted methodology reduced the differences observed between these two data sources. Conclusions Readers, hospital managers and decision makers must know the strengths and weaknesses of each database to interpret the results in an informed context

Additional file 1: of Mixed method versus full top-down microcosting for organ recovery cost assessment in a French hospital group

Supplemental digital content file. (DOCX 29 kb