Assessing the costs of organised health programs: The case of the National Cervical Screening Program
AbstractEconomic evaluations of health care programs are relatively common. However, the costs reported often use budgetary information alone, rather than undertake the potentially more complex task of using a variety of routinely collected data for which adjustments and assumptions will need to be made. Relative to the effort required for an individual-level costing exercise, investigating the costs of a health care program targeted at a population or group is likely to be a more complex and difficult undertaking. This paper describes the process of undertaking a program-level cost analysis, using principles developed to ensure the quality of such evaluations. Documenting the costs of the National Cervical Screening Program is used to illustrate the approach and the difficulties encountered, assumptions made and solutions employed are discussed. Despite the limitations to estimating the costs of health programs identified in this paper, evaluators can take full advantage of the data available by using a systematic description of the program as a basis for costing, testing the assumptions and adjustments needed using the expertise available within a specifically appointed advisory or working group and using sensitivity analysis to provide a greater level of confidence in the results.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney in its series Working Papers with number 2007/2.
Date of creation: Apr 2007
Date of revision:
Cervical screening; economic evaluation; Australia;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2007-04-21 (All new papers)
- NEP-HEA-2007-04-21 (Health Economics)
- NEP-PPM-2007-04-21 (Project, Program & Portfolio Management)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Nicholas Graves & Damian Walker & Rosalind Raine & Andrew Hutchings & Jennifer A. Roberts, 2002. "Cost data for individual patients included in clinical studies: no amount of statistical analysis can compensate for inadequate costing methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 735-739.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Liz Chinchen).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.