The relevance of unrelated costs internal and external to the healthcare sector to the outcome of a cost-comparison analysis of secondary prevention: the case of general colorectal cancer screening in the German population

Health economic studies of colorectal cancer and the contribution of administrative data: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Several forces are contributing to an increase in the number of people living with and surviving colorectal cancer (CRC). However, due to the lack of available data, little is known about the implications of these forces. In recent years, the use of administrative records to inform research has been increasing. The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential contribution that administrative data could have on the health economic research of CRC.

METHODS

To achieve this aim, we conducted a systematic review of the health economic CRC literature published in the United Kingdom and Europe within the last decade (2009-2019).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven relevant studies were identified and divided into economic evaluations, cost of illness studies and cost consequence analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of administrative data, including cancer registry, screening and hospital records, within the health economic research of CRC is commonplace. However, we found that this data often come from regional databases, which reduces the generalisability of results. Further, administrative data appear less able to contribute towards understanding the wider and indirect costs associated with the disease. We explore several ways in which various sources of administrative data could enhance future research in this area.

Establishing funding rates for colonoscopy and gastroscopy procedures in Ontario

Introduction

This paper describes the funding rates established in Ontario to reflect best practices in hospital-based care delivery for these endoscopic procedures: colonoscopy, colonoscopy biopsy, gastroscopy, gastroscopy biopsy, and colonoscopy combined with gastroscopy.

Methods

The funding rates are based on direct costs and were established using a micro-costing approach after receipt of inputs from 3 working groups and a review of the administrative data and literature, where applicable. The first group advised on nursing activities, time, and staffing ratios along the patient pathway for each of the procedures. The second group provided recommendations about the duration for each procedure, and the third group provided information about supplies and equipment, their use, and costs.

Results

The resulting funding rates are $161.18 for colonoscopy and $151.08 for gastroscopy (without accompanying interventions), $16.06 for colonoscopy biopsy and $8.22 for gastroscopy biopsy (added to the respective procedures), and $207.26 for combined colonoscopy and gastroscopy. Detailed costs for each component embedded in the rates are also provided.

Conclusions

The rates came into effect in April 2018. The process and outcomes described here allowed for a transparent pricing mechanism in which funding follows the patient, clinical expert consensus is the basis for practice, and providers and payers both understand the components.