IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/her/chewps/2007-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the costs of organised health programs: The case of the National Cervical Screening Program

Author

Listed:
  • Marion Haas

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Marian Shanahan

    (National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW)

  • Rob Anderson

    (Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG) & Institute for Health & Social Care)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Marion Haas & Marian Shanahan & Rob Anderson, 2007. "Assessing the costs of organised health programs: The case of the National Cervical Screening Program," Working Papers 2007/2, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
  • Handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2007/2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/wp2007_2.pdf
    File Function: First version, April 2007
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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, 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. M. Carreras & M. García-Goñi & P. Ibern & J. Coderch & L. Vall-Llosera & J. Inoriza, 2011. "Estimates of patient costs related with population morbidity: can indirect costs affect the results?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 289-295, August.
    2. Richard Grieve & John Cairns & Simon G. Thompson, 2010. "Improving costing methods in multicentre economic evaluation: the use of multiple imputation for unit costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 939-954, August.
    3. Hana M. Broulíková & Petr Winkler & Marek Páv & Lucie Kondrátová, 2020. "Costs of Mental Health Services in Czechia: Facilitating an Evidence-Based Reform of Psychiatric Care," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 287-298, April.
    4. Adam Martin & Alex Jones & Miranda Mugford & Ian Shemilt & Ruth Hancock & Raphael Wittenberg, 2012. "Methods Used To Identify And Measure Resource Use In Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review Of Questionnaires For Older People," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(8), pages 1017-1022, August.
    5. Marian Shanahan & Emily Lancsar & Marion Haas & Bronwyn Lind & Don Weatherburn & Shuling Chen, 2004. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the New South Wales Adult Drug Court Program," Evaluation Review, , vol. 28(1), pages 3-27, February.
    6. Manuel Gomes & Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & W. J. Edmunds, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Data from Cluster Randomized Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 209-220, January.
    7. Alfredo Palacios & Carlos Rojas-Roque & Lucas González & Ariel Bardach & Agustín Ciapponi & Claudia Peckaitis & Andres Pichon-Riviere & Federico Augustovski, 2021. "Direct Medical Costs, Productivity Loss Costs and Out-Of-Pocket Expenditures in Women with Breast Cancer in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 485-502, May.
    8. Andrea Gabrio & Alexina J. Mason & Gianluca Baio, 2017. "Handling Missing Data in Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Review with Future Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 79-97, June.
    9. Ernst, Chris & Rouse, Paul, 2016. "Complexity, Tertiariness and Healthcare: Unresolved Issues of Reimbursement and Incentives," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 70(3), pages 227-247.
    10. Radhakrishnan, Muralikrishnan & van Gool, Kees & Hall, Jane & Delatycki, Martin & Massie, John, 2008. "Economic evaluation of cystic fibrosis screening: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 133-147, February.
    11. Gerald Richardson & Andrea Manca, 2004. "Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(12), pages 1203-1210, December.
    12. Shelley Potter & Charlotte Davies & Gareth Davies & Caoimhe Rice & William Hollingworth, 2020. "The use of micro-costing in economic analyses of surgical interventions: a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Alvin Kuo Jing Teo & Kiesha Prem & Yi Wang & Tripti Pande & Marina Smelyanskaya & Lisanne Gerstel & Monyrath Chry & Sovannary Tuot & Siyan Yi, 2021. "Economic Evaluation of Community Tuberculosis Active Case-Finding Approaches in Cambodia: A Quasi-Experimental Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cervical screening; economic evaluation; Australia;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:her:chewps:2007/2. 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: Liz Chinchen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chusyau.html .

    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.