Assessing the costs of organised health programs: The case of the National Cervical Screening Program
Economic 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.
|Date of creation:||Apr 2007|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Level 4, 645 Harris Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007|
Phone: +61 2 9514 9799
Fax: 61 2 9514 4730
Web page: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2007/2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Liz Chinchen)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.