Cost determinants and economic assessment in the critical care setting:

Unit costs for non-acute care in Ireland 2016—2019

Background: This paper presents detailed unit costs for 16 healthcare professionals in community-based non-acute services in Ireland for the years 2016—2019. Unit costs are important data inputs for assessments of health service performance and value for money. Internationally, while some countries have an established database of unit costs for healthcare, there is need for a more coordinated approach to calculating healthcare unit costs. In Ireland, detailed cost analysis of acute care is undertaken by the Healthcare Pricing Office but to date there has been no central database of unit costs for community-based non-acute healthcare services.

Methods: Unit costs for publicly employed allied healthcare professionals, Public Health Nurses and Health Care Assistant staff are calculated using a bottom-up micro-costing approach, drawing on methods outlined by the Personal Social Services Research Unit in the UK, and on available Irish and international costing guidelines. Data on salaries, working hours and other parameters are drawn from secondary datasets available from Department of Health, Health Service Executive and other public sources. Unit costs for public and private General Practitioner, dental, and long-term residential care (LTRC) are estimated drawing on available administrative and survey data.

Results: The unit costs for the publicly employed non-acute healthcare professionals have changed by 2–6% over the timeframe 2016–2019 while larger percentage changes are observed in the unit costs for public GP visits and public LTRC (14-15%).

Conclusions: The costs presented here are a first step towards establishing a central database of unit costs for non-acute healthcare services in Ireland. The database will help ensure consistency across Irish health costing studies and facilitate cross-study and cross-country comparisons. Future work will be required to update and expand on the range of services covered and to incorporate new data and methodological developments in cost estimation as they become available.

Collecting and analysing cost data for complex public health trials: reflections on practice

Background

Current guidelines for the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are mainly applicable to facility-based interventions in high-income settings. Differences in the unit of analysis and the high cost of data collection can make these guidelines challenging to follow within public health trials in low- and middle- income settings.

Objective

This paper reflects on the challenges experienced within our own work and proposes solutions that may be useful to others attempting to collect, analyse, and compare cost data between public health research sites in low- and middle-income countries.

Design

We describe the generally accepted methods (norms) for collecting and analysing cost data in a single-site trial from the provider perspective. We then describe our own experience applying these methods within eight comparable cluster randomised, controlled, trials. We describe the strategies used to maximise adherence to the norm, highlight ways in which we deviated from the norm, and reflect on the learning and limitations that resulted.

Results

When the expenses incurred by a number of small research sites are used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of delivering an intervention on a national scale, then deciding which expenses constitute ‘start-up’ costs will be a nontrivial decision that may differ among sites. Similarly, the decision to include or exclude research or monitoring and evaluation costs can have a significant impact on the findings. We separated out research costs and argued that monitoring and evaluation costs should be reported as part of the total trial cost. The human resource constraints that we experienced are also likely to be common to other trials. As we did not have an economist in each site, we collaborated with key personnel at each site who were trained to use a standardised cost collection tool. This approach both accommodated our resource constraints and served as a knowledge sharing and capacity building process within the research teams.

Conclusions

Given the practical reality of conducting randomised, controlled trials of public health interventions in low- and middle- income countries, it is not always possible to adhere to prescribed guidelines for the analysis of cost effectiveness. Compromises are frequently required as researchers seek a pragmatic balance between rigor and feasibility. There is no single solution to this tension but researchers are encouraged to be mindful of the limitations that accompany compromise, whilst being reassured that meaningful analyses can still be conducted with the resulting data.