IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v23y2022i6d10.1007_s10198-021-01405-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resource utilization and disaggregated cost analysis of bariatric surgery in the Australian public healthcare system

Author

Listed:
  • Qing Xia

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Julie A. Campbell

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Hasnat Ahmad

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Barbara Graaff

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Lei Si

    (University of New South Wales)

  • Petr Otahal

    (University of Tasmania)

  • Kevin Ratcliffe

    (Tasmanian State Government)

  • Julie Turtle

    (Tasmanian State Government)

  • John Marrone

    (Tasmanian State Government)

  • Mohammed Huque

    (Tasmanian State Government)

  • Barry Hagan

    (Tasmanian State Government)

  • Matthew Green

    (Tasmanian State Government)

  • Andrew J. Palmer

    (University of Tasmania
    University of Melbourne)

Abstract

Objectives To present a comprehensive real-world micro-costing analysis of bariatric surgery. Methods Patients were included if they underwent primary bariatric surgery (gastric banding [GB], gastric bypass [GBP] and sleeve gastrectomy [SG]) between 2013 and 2019. Costs were disaggregated into cost items and average-per-patient costs from the Australian healthcare systems perspective were expressed in constant 2019 Australian dollars for the entire cohort and subgroup analysis. Annual population-based costs were calculated to capture longitudinal trends. A generalized linear model (GLM) predicted the overall bariatric-related costs. Results N = 240 publicly funded patients were included, with the waitlist times of ≤ 10.7 years. The mean direct costs were $11,269. The operating theatre constituted the largest component of bariatric-related costs, followed by medical supplies, salaries, critical care use, and labour on-costs. Average cost for SG ($12,632) and GBP ($15,041) was higher than that for GB ($10,049). Operating theatre accounted for the largest component for SG/GBP costs, whilst medical supplies were the largest for GB. We observed an increase in SG and a decrease in GB procedures over time. Correspondingly, the main cost driver changed from medical supplies in 2014–2015 for GB procedures to operating theatre for SG thereafter. GLM model estimates of bariatric average cost ranged from $7,580 to $36,633. Conclusions We presented the first detailed characterization of the scale, disaggregated profile and determinants of bariatric-related costs, and examined the evolution of resource utilization patterns and costs, reflecting the shift in the Australian bariatric landscape over time. Understanding these patterns and forecasting of future changes are critical for efficient resource allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Qing Xia & Julie A. Campbell & Hasnat Ahmad & Barbara Graaff & Lei Si & Petr Otahal & Kevin Ratcliffe & Julie Turtle & John Marrone & Mohammed Huque & Barry Hagan & Matthew Green & Andrew J. Palmer, 2022. "Resource utilization and disaggregated cost analysis of bariatric surgery in the Australian public healthcare system," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 941-952, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01405-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-021-01405-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-021-01405-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-021-01405-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    2. Julie A. Campbell & Martin Hensher & Daniel Davies & Matthew Green & Barry Hagan & Ian Jordan & Alison Venn & Alexandr Kuzminov & Amanda Neil & Stephen Wilkinson & Andrew J. Palmer, 2019. "Long-Term Inpatient Hospital Utilisation and Costs (2007–2008 to 2015–2016) for Publicly Waitlisted Bariatric Surgery Patients in an Australian Public Hospital System Based on Australia’s Activity-Bas," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 599-618, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    3. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    4. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    5. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    6. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    7. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    8. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    10. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    11. Abualbishr Alshreef & Michelle Jenks & William Green & Simon Dixon, 2016. "Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 623-634, December.
    12. Yue Yin & Yusi Tu & Mingye Zhao & Wenxi Tang, 2022. "Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions among Chinese Adults with Prediabetes: A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis and CHIME-Modeled Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.
    13. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    14. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    15. B Ekman & H Nero & L S Lohmander & L E Dahlberg, 2020. "Costing analysis of a digital first-line treatment platform for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis in Sweden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
    16. Stuart Wright & Cheryl Jones & Katherine Payne & Nimarta Dharni & Fiona Ulph, 2015. "The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 615-626, December.
    17. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia & Sean Grant & Edward Miguel, 2021. "A framework for open policy analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 154-163.
    18. Jason Madan & Meghan Bruce Kumar & Miriam Taegtmeyer & Edwine Barasa & Swaran Preet Singh, 2020. "SEEP-CI: A Structured Economic Evaluation Process for Complex Health System Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-12, September.
    19. Jesse Elliott & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2020. "Economic Evaluation of Cannabinoid Oil for Dravet Syndrome: A Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(9), pages 971-980, September.
    20. Manal H. El-Hamamsy & Gihan H. Elsisi & Randa Eldessouki & Mohamed M. Elmazar & Ahmed S. Taha & Basma F. Awad & Hossam Elmansy, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of the Combined Use of Warfarin and Low-dose Aspirin Versus Warfarin Alone in Mechanical Valve Prostheses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 431-440, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:23:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-021-01405-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.