Equivalence of two healthcare costing methods: bottom-up and top-down
Abstract
This paper compares two quite different approaches to estimating costs: a 'bottom-up' approach, represented by the US Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Decision Support System that uses local costs of specific inputs; and a 'top-down' approach, represented by the costing system created by the VA Health Economics Resource Center, which assigns the VA national healthcare budget to specific products using various weighting systems. Total annual costs per patient plus the cost for specific services (e.g. clinic visit, radiograph, laboratory, inpatient admission) were compared using scatterplots, correlations, mean difference, and standard deviation of individual differences. Analysis are based upon 2001 costs for 14 915 patients at 72 facilities. Correlations ranged from 0.24 for the cost of outpatient encounters to 0.77 for the cost of inpatient admissions, and 0.85 for total annual cost. The mean difference between costing methods was $707 ($4168 versus $3461) for total annual cost. The standard deviation of the individual differences was $5934. Overall, the agreement between the two costing systems varied by the specific cost being measured and increased with aggregation. Administrators and researchers conducting cost analyses need to carefully consider the purpose, methods, characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses when selecting a method for assessing cost.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Cost of screening was estimated from primary data collected using bottom-up micro-costing from a population-based screening program in Villupuram district of Tamil Nadu in 2016-17.
“Primary data was collected using bottom up micro-costing methods [37] from a population based screening program conducted in the Villupuram district of Tamil Nadu in 2016–17, for estimating the cost of screening.”
From Cost effectiveness of strategies for cervical cancer prevention in India (2020) · cites this paper as [37]
While estimating the cost of cancer treatment, both the health system cost as well as OOP expenditure was estimated following standard methodologies and based on data collected from one of the largest tertiary care public sector hospital located in India.
“While estimating the cost of cancer treatment, both the health system cost as well as OOP expenditure was estimated following standard methodologies [37, 40, 50] and based on data collected from one of the largest tertiary care public sector hospital located in India.”
From Cost effectiveness of strategies for cervical cancer prevention in India (2020) · cites this paper as [37]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 256
- Authors
- Chapko, M. K., Liu, C., Perkins, M., Li, Y., Fortney, J. C., & Maciejewski, M. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System (US)
- Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chapko, Michael K.
- Venue
- Health Economics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-09-03
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1188-1201
- ISSN
- 1057-9230 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1050
- OpenAlex
- W2071741089
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 13.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Economics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Health Services Research and Development
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
- Keywords
- micro-costing, top-down costing, cost estimation methods, method equivalence, Veterans Affairs health care, cost per patient, hospitalization, outpatient visits, cost aggregation, decision support system
- MeSH terms
- Costs and Cost Analysis, United States, Relative Value Scales, Health Care Costs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review