advertisement
Abstract #24654 Published in IGR 11-4
Micro-costing vs gross-costing in the estimation of costs for the pharmoeconomic evaluation of glaucoma in Korea
Kang SH; Lee EKValue in Health 2009; 12: A234
OBJECTIVES: This study compares the result of cost estimation for glaucoma outpa-tients using micro-costing and gross-costing methods. It also examines the factors contributing to the difference in results and investigates the impact of the result by costing method on Budget Impact Analysis(BIA). METHODS: Per year costs of glau-coma outpatients were estimated for micro-costing, which consists of medical fee, eye examinations and laser therapy. A decision tree designed with 6 pathways was used. A patient's visit frequency and transition probability for each pathway were obtained from literature and clinical expert opinions. In gross-costing, yearly per-capita outpa-tient average costs were calculated by using health insurance statistics data on glau-coma (ICD 10 code: H40). For BIA, each costing result was applied to the patients nationwide. RESULTS: The calculated costs of annual outpatient were $148.7 and $71.1 for micro-costing and gross-costing, respectively. The cost calculated by pathway in micro-costing ranged from the minimum of $142.9 to the maximum of $589.8. BIA result were $11,302,788 for micro-costing and $5,407,527 for gross-costing. CONCLUSIONS: One factor contributing to the difference between the two methods is the gap between the standard model and the actual use of medical services. Another factor particular to gross-costing is that in the case a patient changes medical institutions, data from previous institutions do not accumulate, which underestimates the total cost of medical care. As a result, different costing methods may result in dif-ferent decision-making of new drugs.
S.H. Kang. SookMyung Women's University, SeoulSouth Korea.
Classification:
14 Costing studies; pharmacoeconomics