A general framework for classifying costing methods for economic evaluation of health care

Zuzana Špacírová, David Epstein, Leticia García-Mochón, Joan Rovira, Antonio Olry de Labry Lima and Jaime Espín ()
Additional contact information
Zuzana Špacírová: Andalusian School of Public Health/Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública (EASP)
Leticia García-Mochón: Andalusian School of Public Health/Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública (EASP)
Joan Rovira: Andalusian School of Public Health/Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública (EASP)
Antonio Olry de Labry Lima: Andalusian School of Public Health/Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública (EASP)
Jaime Espín: Andalusian School of Public Health/Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública (EASP)

The European Journal of Health Economics, 2020, vol. 21, issue 4, No 5, 529-542

Abstract: Abstract According to the most traditional economic evaluation manuals, all “relevant” costs should be included in the economic analysis, taking into account factors such as the patient population, setting, location, year, perspective and time horizon. However, cost information may be designed for other purposes. Health care organisations may lack sophisticated accounting systems and consequently, health economists may be unfamiliar with cost accounting terminology, which may lead to discrepancy in terms used in the economic evaluation literature and management accountancy. This paper identifies new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care and critically comments on each included article. For better clarification of terminology, a pragmatic glossary of terms is proposed. A scoping review of English and Spanish language literature (2005–2018) was conducted to identify new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care. The databases PubMed, Scopus and EconLit were searched. A total of 21 studies were included yielding 43 costing analysis. The most common analysis was top-down micro-costing (49%), followed by top-down gross-costing (37%) and bottom-up micro-costing (14%). Resource data were collected prospectively in 12 top-down studies (32%). Hospital database was the most common way of collection of resource data (44%) in top-down gross-costing studies. In top-down micro-costing studies, the most resource use data collection was the combination of several methods (38%). In general, substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods were found. The convergence of top-down and bottom-up methods may be an important topic in the next decades.

Keywords: Costing methodology; Economic evaluation; Top-down method; Bottom-up method; Micro-costing; Activity-based costing (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A12 I10 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-019-01157-9 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:21:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10198-019-01157-9

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... cs/journal/10198/PS2

DOI: 10.1007/s10198-019-01157-9

Access Statistics for this article

The European Journal of Health Economics is currently edited by J.-M.G.v.d. Schulenburg

More articles in The European Journal of Health Economics from Springer, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ) Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().