Dataset Information

From centralized DRG costing to decentralized TDABC-assessing the feasibility of hospital cost accounting for decision-making in Denmark.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The objective is to examine hospital cost accounts to understand the foundation upon which healthcare decisions are based. More specifically, the aim is to add insights to accounting practices and their applicability towards a newly establish value-based agenda with a focus on patient-level cost data.

Methods

We apply a cost accounting framework developed to position and understand hospital cost practices in relation to government requirements. Allocated cost account data from 2015 from all Danish hospitals were collected and analyzed. These cost accounts lay the foundation for diagnosis related group (DRG) rate setting. We further compare the data's limitations and potential in a value-based healthcare (VBHC) agenda with the aim of implementing time-driven activity based costing (TDABC).

Results

We find exceedingly aggregated department-level data that are not tied to patient information. We investigate these data and find large data skewness in the current system, mainly due to structural variances within hospitals. We further demonstrate the current costs data's lack of suitability for VBHC but with suggestions of how cost data can become applicable for such an approach, which will increase cost data transparency and, thus, provide a better foundation for both local and national decision-making.

Conclusions

The findings raise concerns about the cost accounts' ability to provide valid information in healthcare decision-making due to a lack of transparency and obvious variances that distort budgets and production-value estimates. The standardization of costs stemming from hospitals with large organizational differences has significant implications on the fairness of resource allocation and decision-making at large. Thus, for hospitals to become more cost efficient, a substantially more detailed clinically bottom-led cost account system is essential to provide better information for prioritization in health.

SUBMITTER: Malmmose M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8371815 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.MethodsA systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.ResultsA total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.ConclusionThere are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.

Project description:ObjectiveTo introduce a statistical inference framework for policy decision making on access to pediatric dental care.Data sourcesSecondary data were collected for the state of Colorado for year 2019.Study designThe access model was an optimization model, matching the demand (patients) and supply (providers) of dental care. Sampling distributions of model inputs were specified using hierarchical Bayesian models, with hyperparameters informed by prior information derived from multiple data sources. Simultaneous inference was applied to identify areas for access improvement. The model was applied to make inference on the pediatric dental care in Colorado, accounting for financial access, differentiated into public (Medicaid and CHIP), private (commercial and out-of-pocket), and without financial access.Data collection/extraction methodsMultiple data sources informed the access measurement approach including: 2017 American Community Survey, 2019 Colorado Dental Board, and 2019 National Provider Plan and Enumeration System, 2019 InsureKidsNow.gov among others.Principal findingsThe median access measure (travel distance) was greater than the Colorado access standards in 16.9% and 65.1% of census tracts for children with private financial access and publicly insured, respectively. Accounting for uncertainty (confidence level 99%), these percentages decreased to 14.6% and 25.6%, respectively, with mostly suburban and rural tracts failing to meet the standards. The median disparity for Medicaid and CHIP versus private financial access was greater than 5 miles in 84.5% and 81.6% of census tracts, respectively. Accounting for uncertainty (confidence level 99%), these percentages declined to 19.5% and 10.5%, respectively, with significant disparities around the metropolitan areas.ConclusionsWhile many communities failed to meet access standards, when accounting for uncertainty, most urban ones did not fail. Disparities in spatial access between publicly and privately insured were most acute in urban communities. Medicaid insured experienced higher disparities than CHIP insured; those differences were not identified when not accounting for uncertainty.

Project description:BackgroundPhysician non-compliance with clinical practice guidelines remains a critical barrier to high quality care. Serious games (using gaming technology for serious purposes) have emerged as a method of studying physician decision making. However, little is known about their validity.MethodsWe created a serious game and evaluated its construct validity. We used the decision context of trauma triage in the Emergency Department of non-trauma centers, given widely accepted guidelines that recommend the transfer of severely injured patients to trauma centers. We designed cases with the premise that the representativeness heuristic influences triage (i.e. physicians make transfer decisions based on archetypes of severely injured patients rather than guidelines). We randomized a convenience sample of emergency medicine physicians to a control or cognitive load arm, and compared performance (disposition decisions, number of orders entered, time spent per case). We hypothesized that cognitive load would increase the use of heuristics, increasing the transfer of representative cases and decreasing the transfer of non-representative cases.FindingsWe recruited 209 physicians, of whom 168 (79%) began and 142 (68%) completed the task. Physicians transferred 31% of severely injured patients during the game, consistent with rates of transfer for severely injured patients in practice. They entered the same average number of orders in both arms (control (C): 10.9 [SD 4.8] vs. cognitive load (CL):10.7 [SD 5.6], p = 0.74), despite spending less time per case in the control arm (C: 9.7 [SD 7.1] vs. CL: 11.7 [SD 6.7] minutes, p<0.01). Physicians were equally likely to transfer representative cases in the two arms (C: 45% vs. CL: 34%, p = 0.20), but were more likely to transfer non-representative cases in the control arm (C: 38% vs. CL: 26%, p = 0.03).ConclusionsWe found that physicians made decisions consistent with actual practice, that we could manipulate cognitive load, and that load increased the use of heuristics, as predicted by cognitive theory.