IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i6p2075-d335024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Budgeting for Environmental Health Services in Healthcare Facilities: A Ten-Step Model for Planning and Costing

Author

Listed:
  • Darcy M. Anderson

    (The Water Institute, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Ryan Cronk

    (The Water Institute, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Lucy Best

    (The Water Institute, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Mark Radin

    (The Water Institute, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Hayley Schram

    (The Water Institute, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • J. Wren Tracy

    (The Water Institute, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)

  • Jamie Bartram

    (The Water Institute, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
    School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

Abstract

Environmental health services (EHS) in healthcare facilities (HCFs) are critical for safe care provision, yet their availability in low- and middle-income countries is low. A poor understanding of costs hinders progress towards adequate provision. Methods are inconsistent and poorly documented in costing literature, suggesting opportunities to improve evidence. The goal of this research was to develop a model to guide budgeting for EHS in HCFs. Based on 47 studies selected through a systematic review, we identified discrete budgeting steps, developed codes to define each step, and ordered steps into a model. We identified good practices based on a review of additional selected guidelines for costing EHS and HCFs. Our model comprises ten steps in three phases: planning, data collection, and synthesis. Costing-stakeholders define the costing purpose, relevant EHS, and cost scope; assess the EHS delivery context; develop a costing plan; and identify data sources (planning). Stakeholders then execute their costing plan and evaluate the data quality (data collection). Finally, stakeholders calculate costs and disseminate findings (synthesis). We present three hypothetical costing examples and discuss good practices, including using costing frameworks, selecting appropriate indicators to measure the quantity and quality of EHS, and iterating planning and data collection to select appropriate costing approaches and identify data gaps.

Suggested Citation

  • Darcy M. Anderson & Ryan Cronk & Lucy Best & Mark Radin & Hayley Schram & J. Wren Tracy & Jamie Bartram, 2020. "Budgeting for Environmental Health Services in Healthcare Facilities: A Ten-Step Model for Planning and Costing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-22, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:6:p:2075-:d:335024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/6/2075/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/6/2075/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael K. Chapko & Chuan‐Fen Liu & Mark Perkins & Yu‐Fang Li & John C. Fortney & Matthew L. Maciejewski, 2009. "Equivalence of two healthcare costing methods: bottom‐up and top‐down," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(10), pages 1188-1201, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Wong, Brad & Radin, Mark, 2019. "Benefit-Cost Analysis of a Package of Early Childhood Interventions to Improve Nutrition in Haiti," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(S1), pages 154-184, April.
    4. Shannon M. McGinnis & Thomas McKeon & Richa Desai & Akudo Ejelonu & Stanley Laskowski & Heather M. Murphy, 2017. "A Systematic Review: Costing and Financing of Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) in Schools," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-28, April.
    5. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    6. Dale Whittington & Mark Radin & Marc Jeuland, 2020. "Evidence-based policy analysis? The strange case of the randomized controlled trials of community-led total sanitation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 36(1), pages 191-221.
    7. Guy Hutton & Claire Chase, 2016. "The Knowledge Base for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-35, May.
    8. Aggie Paulus & Arno van Raak & Femke Keijzer, 2002. "Core Articles: ABC: The Pathway to Comparison of the Costs of Integrated Care," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 25-32, July.
    9. Radin, Mark & Jeuland, Marc & Wang, Hua & Whittington, Dale, 2020. "Benefit–Cost Analysis of Community-Led Total Sanitation: Incorporating Results from Recent Evaluations," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 380-417, October.
    10. Kelly T. Alexander & Alex Mwaki & Dorothy Adhiambo & Malaika Cheney-Coker & Richard Muga & Matthew C. Freeman, 2016. "The Life-Cycle Costs of School Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Access in Kenyan Primary Schools," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Darcy M. Anderson & Ryan Cronk & Donald Fejfar & Emily Pak & Michelle Cawley & Jamie Bartram, 2021. "Safe Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Review on the Costs of Establishing and Maintaining Environmental Health in Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Thelma Zulfawu Abu & Susan J. Elliott, 2020. "When It Is Not Measured, How Then Will It Be Planned for? WaSH a Critical Indicator for Universal Health Coverage in Kenya," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-23, August.

    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. Seungman Cha & Sunghoon Jung & Dawit Belew Bizuneh & Tadesse Abera & Young-Ah Doh & Jieun Seong & Ian Ross, 2020. "Benefits and Costs of a Community-Led Total Sanitation Intervention in Rural Ethiopia—A Trial-Based Ex Post Economic Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-21, July.
    2. Darcy M. Anderson & Ryan Cronk & Donald Fejfar & Emily Pak & Michelle Cawley & Jamie Bartram, 2021. "Safe Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Review on the Costs of Establishing and Maintaining Environmental Health in Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Malgorzata Cyganska & Piotr Cyganski & Chris Pyke, 2019. "Development of clinical value unit method for calculating patient costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 971-983, August.
    4. Gelli A & Kemp CG & Margolies A & Twalibu A & Katundu M & Levin C, 2022. "Economic evaluation of an early childhood development center–based agriculture and nutrition intervention in Malawi," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(1), pages 67-80, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Kim Edmunds & Penny Reeves & Paul Scuffham & Daniel A. Galvão & Robert U. Newton & Mark Jones & Nigel Spry & Dennis R. Taaffe & David Joseph & Suzanne K. Chambers & Haitham Tuffaha, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 727-737, October.
    7. Andrew Briggs & Rachel Nugent, 2016. "Editorial," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 6-8, February.
    8. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Federico Augustovski & Esther Bekker-Grob & Andrew H. Briggs & Chris Carswell & Lisa Caulley & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk & Dan Greenberg & Elizabeth Loder & Josephine Ma, 2022. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 601-609, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Bugge, Christoffer & Sæther, Erik Magnus & Brustugun, Odd Terje & Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø, 2021. "Societal cost of cancer in Norway –Results of taking a broader cost perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(8), pages 1100-1107.
    11. Shankar Prinja & Gursimer Jeet & Ramesh Verma & Dinesh Kumar & Pankaj Bahuguna & Manmeet Kaur & Rajesh Kumar, 2014. "Economic Analysis of Delivering Primary Health Care Services through Community Health Workers in 3 North Indian States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, March.
    12. Klas Kellerborg & Werner Brouwer & Pieter Baal, 2020. "Costs and benefits of interventions aimed at major infectious disease threats: lessons from the literature," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1329-1350, December.
    13. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    14. Paola Salari & Thomas Fürst & Stefanie Knopp & Jürg Utzinger & Fabrizio Tediosi, 2020. "Cost of interventions to control schistosomiasis: A systematic review of the literature," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-23, March.
    15. Raulinajtys-Grzybek, Monika, 2014. "Cost accounting models used for price-setting of health services: An international review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 341-353.
    16. Susanne Mayer & Noemi Kiss & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2017. "Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Zuzana Špacírová & David Epstein & Leticia García-Mochón & Joan Rovira & Antonio Olry de Labry Lima & Jaime Espín, 2020. "A general framework for classifying costing methods for economic evaluation of health care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 529-542, June.
    18. Chloé Gervès-Pinquié & Anne Girault & Serena Phillips & Sarah Raskin & Mandi Pratt-Chapman, 2018. "Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    19. Jaclyn Beca & Don Husereau & Kelvin K. W. Chan & Neil Hawkins & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2018. "Oncology Modeling for Fun and Profit! Key Steps for Busy Analysts in Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 7-15, January.
    20. Alessandro G. Campolina & Luciana M. Rozman & Tassia C. Decimoni & Roseli Leandro & Hillegonda M. D. Novaes & Patrícia Coelho De Soárez, 2017. "Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 163-172, April.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:6:p:2075-:d:335024. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.