Variations in cost calculations in spine surgery cost-effectiveness research

Matthew D. Alvin, Jacob A. Miller, Daniel Lubelski, Benjamin P. Rosenbaum, Kalil G. Abdullah, Robert G. Whitmore, Edward C. Benzel, Thomas E. Mroz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Object: Cost-effectiveness research in spine surgery has been a prominent focus over the last decade. However, there has yet to be a standardized method developed for calculation of costs in such studies. This lack of a standardized costing methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an intervention for a specific diagnosis. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review all cost-effectiveness studies published on spine surgery and compare and contrast various costing methodologies used. Methods: The authors performed a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature related to spine surgery. All cost-effectiveness analyses pertaining to spine surgery were identified using the cost-effectiveness analysis registry database of the Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy, and the MEDLINE database. Each article was reviewed to determine the study subject, methodology, and results. Data were collected from each study, including costs, interventions, cost calculation method, perspective of cost calculation, and definitions of direct and indirect costs if available. Results: Thirty-seven cost-effectiveness studies on spine surgery were included in the present study. Twentyseven (73%) of the studies involved the lumbar spine and the remaining 10 (27%) involved the cervical spine. Of the 37 studies, 13 (35%) used Medicare reimbursements, 12 (32%) used a case-costing database, 3 (8%) used costto-charge ratios (CCRs), 2 (5%) used a combination of Medicare reimbursements and CCRs, 3 (8%) used the United Kingdom National Health Service reimbursement system, 2 (5%) used a Dutch reimbursement system, 1 (3%) used the United Kingdom Department of Health data, and 1 (3%) used the Tricare Military Reimbursement system. Nineteen (51%) studies completed their cost analysis from the societal perspective, 11 (30%) from the hospital perspective, and 7 (19%) from the payer perspective. Of those studies with a societal perspective, 14 (38%) reported actual indirect costs. Conclusions: Changes in cost have a direct impact on the value equation for concluding whether an intervention is cost-effective. It is essential to develop a standardized, accurate means of calculating costs. Comparability nd transparency are essential, such that studies can be compared properly and policy makers can be appropriately informed when making decisions for our health care system based on the results of these studies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberE1
JournalNeurosurgical Focus
Volume36
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Spine
Costs and Cost Analysis
Research
Databases
Medicare
National Health Programs
Health Policy
Administrative Personnel
MEDLINE
Registries
Decision Making
Delivery of Health Care
Health

Keywords

  • Cost utility
  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Cost-to-charge ratio
  • Direct cost
  • Health care policy
  • Medicare reimbursement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Alvin, M. D., Miller, J. A., Lubelski, D., Rosenbaum, B. P., Abdullah, K. G., Whitmore, R. G., ... Mroz, T. E. (2014). Variations in cost calculations in spine surgery cost-effectiveness research. Neurosurgical Focus, 36(6), [E1]. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS1447

Variations in cost calculations in spine surgery cost-effectiveness research. / Alvin, Matthew D.; Miller, Jacob A.; Lubelski, Daniel; Rosenbaum, Benjamin P.; Abdullah, Kalil G.; Whitmore, Robert G.; Benzel, Edward C.; Mroz, Thomas E.

In: Neurosurgical Focus, Vol. 36, No. 6, E1, 06.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Alvin, MD, Miller, JA, Lubelski, D, Rosenbaum, BP, Abdullah, KG, Whitmore, RG, Benzel, EC & Mroz, TE 2014, 'Variations in cost calculations in spine surgery cost-effectiveness research', Neurosurgical Focus, vol. 36, no. 6, E1. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS1447
Alvin, Matthew D. ; Miller, Jacob A. ; Lubelski, Daniel ; Rosenbaum, Benjamin P. ; Abdullah, Kalil G. ; Whitmore, Robert G. ; Benzel, Edward C. ; Mroz, Thomas E. / Variations in cost calculations in spine surgery cost-effectiveness research. In: Neurosurgical Focus. 2014 ; Vol. 36, No. 6.
@article{f8d55dde8f14436c9487bcb2705ea04e,
title = "Variations in cost calculations in spine surgery cost-effectiveness research",
abstract = "Object: Cost-effectiveness research in spine surgery has been a prominent focus over the last decade. However, there has yet to be a standardized method developed for calculation of costs in such studies. This lack of a standardized costing methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an intervention for a specific diagnosis. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review all cost-effectiveness studies published on spine surgery and compare and contrast various costing methodologies used. Methods: The authors performed a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature related to spine surgery. All cost-effectiveness analyses pertaining to spine surgery were identified using the cost-effectiveness analysis registry database of the Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy, and the MEDLINE database. Each article was reviewed to determine the study subject, methodology, and results. Data were collected from each study, including costs, interventions, cost calculation method, perspective of cost calculation, and definitions of direct and indirect costs if available. Results: Thirty-seven cost-effectiveness studies on spine surgery were included in the present study. Twentyseven (73{\%}) of the studies involved the lumbar spine and the remaining 10 (27{\%}) involved the cervical spine. Of the 37 studies, 13 (35{\%}) used Medicare reimbursements, 12 (32{\%}) used a case-costing database, 3 (8{\%}) used costto-charge ratios (CCRs), 2 (5{\%}) used a combination of Medicare reimbursements and CCRs, 3 (8{\%}) used the United Kingdom National Health Service reimbursement system, 2 (5{\%}) used a Dutch reimbursement system, 1 (3{\%}) used the United Kingdom Department of Health data, and 1 (3{\%}) used the Tricare Military Reimbursement system. Nineteen (51{\%}) studies completed their cost analysis from the societal perspective, 11 (30{\%}) from the hospital perspective, and 7 (19{\%}) from the payer perspective. Of those studies with a societal perspective, 14 (38{\%}) reported actual indirect costs. Conclusions: Changes in cost have a direct impact on the value equation for concluding whether an intervention is cost-effective. It is essential to develop a standardized, accurate means of calculating costs. Comparability nd transparency are essential, such that studies can be compared properly and policy makers can be appropriately informed when making decisions for our health care system based on the results of these studies.",
keywords = "Cost utility, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Cost-to-charge ratio, Direct cost, Health care policy, Medicare reimbursement",
author = "Alvin, {Matthew D.} and Miller, {Jacob A.} and Daniel Lubelski and Rosenbaum, {Benjamin P.} and Abdullah, {Kalil G.} and Whitmore, {Robert G.} and Benzel, {Edward C.} and Mroz, {Thomas E.}",
year = "2014",
month = "6",
doi = "10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS1447",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
journal = "Neurosurgical Focus",
issn = "1092-0684",
publisher = "American Association of Neurological Surgeons",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variations in cost calculations in spine surgery cost-effectiveness research

AU - Alvin, Matthew D.

AU - Miller, Jacob A.

AU - Lubelski, Daniel

AU - Rosenbaum, Benjamin P.

AU - Abdullah, Kalil G.

AU - Whitmore, Robert G.

AU - Benzel, Edward C.

AU - Mroz, Thomas E.

PY - 2014/6

Y1 - 2014/6

N2 - Object: Cost-effectiveness research in spine surgery has been a prominent focus over the last decade. However, there has yet to be a standardized method developed for calculation of costs in such studies. This lack of a standardized costing methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an intervention for a specific diagnosis. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review all cost-effectiveness studies published on spine surgery and compare and contrast various costing methodologies used. Methods: The authors performed a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature related to spine surgery. All cost-effectiveness analyses pertaining to spine surgery were identified using the cost-effectiveness analysis registry database of the Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy, and the MEDLINE database. Each article was reviewed to determine the study subject, methodology, and results. Data were collected from each study, including costs, interventions, cost calculation method, perspective of cost calculation, and definitions of direct and indirect costs if available. Results: Thirty-seven cost-effectiveness studies on spine surgery were included in the present study. Twentyseven (73%) of the studies involved the lumbar spine and the remaining 10 (27%) involved the cervical spine. Of the 37 studies, 13 (35%) used Medicare reimbursements, 12 (32%) used a case-costing database, 3 (8%) used costto-charge ratios (CCRs), 2 (5%) used a combination of Medicare reimbursements and CCRs, 3 (8%) used the United Kingdom National Health Service reimbursement system, 2 (5%) used a Dutch reimbursement system, 1 (3%) used the United Kingdom Department of Health data, and 1 (3%) used the Tricare Military Reimbursement system. Nineteen (51%) studies completed their cost analysis from the societal perspective, 11 (30%) from the hospital perspective, and 7 (19%) from the payer perspective. Of those studies with a societal perspective, 14 (38%) reported actual indirect costs. Conclusions: Changes in cost have a direct impact on the value equation for concluding whether an intervention is cost-effective. It is essential to develop a standardized, accurate means of calculating costs. Comparability nd transparency are essential, such that studies can be compared properly and policy makers can be appropriately informed when making decisions for our health care system based on the results of these studies.

AB - Object: Cost-effectiveness research in spine surgery has been a prominent focus over the last decade. However, there has yet to be a standardized method developed for calculation of costs in such studies. This lack of a standardized costing methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an intervention for a specific diagnosis. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review all cost-effectiveness studies published on spine surgery and compare and contrast various costing methodologies used. Methods: The authors performed a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature related to spine surgery. All cost-effectiveness analyses pertaining to spine surgery were identified using the cost-effectiveness analysis registry database of the Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy, and the MEDLINE database. Each article was reviewed to determine the study subject, methodology, and results. Data were collected from each study, including costs, interventions, cost calculation method, perspective of cost calculation, and definitions of direct and indirect costs if available. Results: Thirty-seven cost-effectiveness studies on spine surgery were included in the present study. Twentyseven (73%) of the studies involved the lumbar spine and the remaining 10 (27%) involved the cervical spine. Of the 37 studies, 13 (35%) used Medicare reimbursements, 12 (32%) used a case-costing database, 3 (8%) used costto-charge ratios (CCRs), 2 (5%) used a combination of Medicare reimbursements and CCRs, 3 (8%) used the United Kingdom National Health Service reimbursement system, 2 (5%) used a Dutch reimbursement system, 1 (3%) used the United Kingdom Department of Health data, and 1 (3%) used the Tricare Military Reimbursement system. Nineteen (51%) studies completed their cost analysis from the societal perspective, 11 (30%) from the hospital perspective, and 7 (19%) from the payer perspective. Of those studies with a societal perspective, 14 (38%) reported actual indirect costs. Conclusions: Changes in cost have a direct impact on the value equation for concluding whether an intervention is cost-effective. It is essential to develop a standardized, accurate means of calculating costs. Comparability nd transparency are essential, such that studies can be compared properly and policy makers can be appropriately informed when making decisions for our health care system based on the results of these studies.

KW - Cost utility

KW - Cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - Cost-to-charge ratio

KW - Direct cost

KW - Health care policy

KW - Medicare reimbursement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84902479416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84902479416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS1447

DO - 10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS1447

M3 - Article

C2 - 24881633

AN - SCOPUS:84902479416

VL - 36

JO - Neurosurgical Focus

JF - Neurosurgical Focus

SN - 1092-0684

IS - 6

M1 - E1

ER -