Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-kw98b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-24T12:24:25.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

UPDATE OF THE DUTCH MANUAL FOR COSTING IN ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2012

Siok Swan Tan
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam email: tan@bmg.eur.nl
Clazien A. M. Bouwmans
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Frans F. H. Rutten
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

Abstract

Objectives: In 2000, the first “Dutch Manual for Costing: Methods and Reference Prices for Economic Evaluations in Healthcare” was published, followed by an updated version in 2004. The purpose of the Manual is to facilitate the implementation and assessment of costing studies in economic evaluations. New developments necessitated the publication of a thoroughly updated version of the Manual in 2010. The present study aims to describe the main changes of the 2010 Manual compared with earlier editions of the Manual.

Methods: New and updated topics of the Manual were identified. The recommendations of the Manual were compared with the health economic guidelines of other countries, eliciting strengths and limitations of alternative methods.

Results: New topics in the Manual concern medical costs in life-years gained, the database of the Diagnosis Treatment Combination (DBC) casemix System, reference prices for the mental healthcare sector and the costs borne by informal care-givers. Updated topics relate to the friction cost method, discounting future effects and options for transferring cost results from international studies to the Dutch situation.

Conclusions: The Action Plan is quite similar to many health economic guidelines in healthcare. However, the recommendations on particular aspects may differ between national guidelines in some respects. Although the Manual may serve as an example to countries intending to develop a manual of this kind, it should always be kept in mind that preferred methods predominantly depend on a country's specific context.

Type
METHODS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Barbieri, M, Drummond, M, Willke, R, et al. . Variability of cost-effectiveness estimates for pharmaceuticals in Western Europe: Lessons for inferring generalizability. Value Health. 2005;8:1023.Google Scholar
2.Brouwer, WB, Niessen, LW, Postma, MJ, Rutten, FF. Need for differential discounting of costs and health effects in cost effectiveness analyses. BMJ. 2005;331:446448.Google Scholar
3.Centraal Administratie Kantoor. Jaarverslag 2008. CAK: Den Haag; Juni 2009.Google Scholar
4.Claxton, K, Paulden, M, Gravelle, H, Brouwer, W, Culyer, AJ. Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health-care technologies. Health Econ. 2011;20:215.Google Scholar
5.Commonwealth of Australia. Manual of recourse items and their associated costs 2009. 4th ed.Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.Google Scholar
6.Curtis, L. Unit costs of health and social care 2010. 18th ed.Canterbury: University of Kent; 2010.Google Scholar
7.Ferguson, B. NHS database of reference costs is severely flawed. BMJ. 2001;323:106.Google Scholar
8.Goldstein, H. Multilevel statistical models. 3rd ed.New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
9.Hakkaart–van Roijen, L, Tan, SS, Bouwmans-Frijters, CAM. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek: Methoden en referentieprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg, geactualiseerde versie 2010. www.cvz.nl/.Google Scholar
10.Hjelmgren, J, Berggren, F, Andersson, F. Health economic guidelines–similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health. 2001;4:225250.Google Scholar
11.Hoffmann, C, Graf von der Schulenburg, JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy. 2000;52:179192.Google Scholar
12.Johnston, K, Buxton, MJ, Jones, DR, Fitzpatrick, R. Assessing the costs of healthcare technologies in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:176.Google Scholar
13.Koopmanschap, MA, Rutten, FF. A practical guide for calculating indirect costs of disease. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;10:460466.Google Scholar
14.Krauth, C, Hessel, F, Hansmeier, T, et al. . [Empirical standard costs for health economic evaluation in Germany – a proposal by the working group methods in health economic evaluation]. Gesundheitswesen. 2005;67:736746.Google Scholar
15.Oostenbrink, JB, Koopmanschap, MA, Rutten, FF. Standardisation of costs: The Dutch Manual for Costing in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20:443454.Google Scholar
16.Raftery, J, Roderick, P, Stevens, A. Potential use of routine databases in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:192, iii-iv.Google Scholar
17.Raikou, M, Briggs, A, Gray, A, McGuire, A. Centre-specific or average unit costs in multi-centre studies? Some theory and simulation. Health Econ. 2000;9:191198.Google Scholar
18.Rappange, DR, van Baal, PH, van Exel, NJ, et al. . Unrelated medical costs in life-years gained: Should they be included in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions? Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:815830.Google Scholar
19.Rodenburg-van Dieten HEM. Richtlijnen voor Farmaco-Economisch Onderzoek; Evaluatie en Actualisatie. Diemen: College voor zorgverzekeringen; 2005.Google Scholar
20.Rutten-van Molken, M. Van kosten tot effecten: Een handleiding voor evaluatiestudies in de gezondheidszorg. 2nd ed.Maarssen: Elsevier gezondheidszorg; 2010.Google Scholar
21.Swindle, R, Lukas, CV, Meyer, DA, Barnett, PG, Hendricks, AM. Cost analysis in the Department of Veterans Affairs: Consensus and future directions. Med Care. 1999;37:AS3AS8.Google Scholar
22.Tan, SS. Microcosting in economic evaluations: Issues of accuracy, feasibility, consistency and generalisability. http://publishing.eur.nl/ir/repub/asset/17354/091127_Tan,%20Siok%20Swan.pdf. 1st ed. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam; 2009.Google Scholar
23.Tan, SS, van Ineveld, BM, Redekop, WK, Hakkaart-van Roijen, L. The Netherlands: The diagnose behandeling combinaties (DBCs). In: Busse, R, Geissler, A, Quentin, W, Wiley, MM, eds. Diagnosis-related groups in Europe: Moving towards transparency, efficiency and quality in hospitals, 1st ed.Buckingham: Open University Press and WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2011.Google Scholar
24.Tan, SS, Rutten, FF, van Ineveld, BM, Redekop, WK, Hakkaart-van Roijen, L. Comparing methodologies for the cost estimation of hospital services. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10:3945.Google Scholar
25.van Baal, P, Brouwer, W. PAID 1.0 in practice: A brief clarification regarding its possibilities and limitations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29:545547.Google Scholar
26.van den Hout, WB. The value of productivity: Human-capital versus friction-cost method. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69 (Suppl 1):i89i91.Google Scholar
27.Weinstein, MC, O'Brien, B, Hornberger, J, et al. . Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices–Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6:917.Google Scholar
28.Wordsworth, S, Ludbrook, A, Caskey, F, Macleod, A. Collecting unit cost data in multicentre studies. Creating comparable methods. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6:3844.Google Scholar