Cited by 256Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealthcare Policy and ManagementHealthcare cost, quality, practices

Equivalence of two healthcare costing methods: bottom-up and top-down

Chapko, Michael K., Liu, Chuan‐Fen, Perkins, Mark, Li, Yu‐Fang, Fortney, John C., Maciejewski, Matthew L.·2009·Health Economics

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

Crossref · 10.1002/hec.1422

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”
  • 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.”

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