Inpatient Hospital Charge Variability of U.S. Hospitals

Park, James D.; Kim, Edward; Werner, Rachel M.

doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3352-0

Cited by 24 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the perspective of analysis was often based on the researchers’ interpretation of the data. In 40 (45%) studies [ 22 – 24 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 60 – 86 ], costs for HF-related events were (or appeared to have been) analyzed from a payer’s perspective. Three studies adopted a healthcare sector perspective [ 87 – 89 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The method of estimating costs was not explicitly stated in the majority of studies (58/87; 67%) (ESM 3). Based on the reviewers’ interpretation, 41 studies employed a bottom-up approach (cost profile is constructed using disaggregated patient-level data), seven used a top-down approach [ 47 , 64 , 65 , 71 , 74 , 76 , 90 ] (total expenditure divided by number of patients treated), and one study [ 25 ] used a mixed costing method. Information reported by the remaining studies ( n = 38, only published as abstracts) did not allow for conclusions to be drawn on the costing approach.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The perspective of the economic analysis was adequately reported and justified in 19 studies (44%); less than half (21/43; 40%) [ 22 , 24 , 25 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 53 , 59 , 60 , 63 , 65 , 67 – 69 , 74 , 81 , 87 – 89 , 116 ] did not clearly define the perspective but the available information allowed for interpretation in line with published definitions [ 117 ]; three studies (10%), only published as abstracts, left the perspective completely undefined [ 34 , 90 , 97 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sources of resource use and unit costs, currency and cost year, and the methods of resource use valuation (i.e., cost/charge, cost-to-charge ratio) were well defined in all studies. The majority of studies (26/43; 60%) reported adequately on the methodology of estimating costs [ 22 – 24 , 43 , 44 , 49 , 50 , 57 – 60 , 63 , 66 – 72 , 75 – 77 , 85 , 87 , 88 , 116 ]; in 14 (33%), the costing approach was concluded by the information reported and relevant guidelines by Drummond et al [ 91 ], although not explicitly stated [ 25 , 45 – 47 , 53 – 55 , 64 , 65 , 81 , 86 , 89 , 90 , 118 ]; three studies (10%), only published as abstracts, did not provide any information on the costing methodology [ 34 , 73 , 97 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Systematic Review of Medical Costs Associated with Heart Failure in the USA (2014–2020)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Heart failure presents a growing clinical and economic burden in the USA. Robust cost data on the burden of illness are critical to inform economic evaluations of new therapeutic interventions. Objectives This systematic literature review of heart failure-related costs in the USA aimed to assess the quality of the published evidence and provide a narrative synthesis of current data. Methods Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination York Database, including the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment Database) were searched for journal articles published between January 2014 and March 2020. The review, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019134201), was restricted to cost-of-illness studies in adults with heart failure events in the USA. Results Eighty-seven studies were included, 41 of which allowed a comparison of cost estimates across studies. The annual median total medical costs for heart failure care were estimated at $24,383 per patient, with heart failure-specific hospitalizations driving costs (median $15,879 per patient). Analyses of subgroups revealed that heart failure-related costs are highly sensitive to individual patient characteristics (such as the presence of comorbidities and age) with large variations even within a subgroup. Additionally, differences in study design and a lack of standardized reporting limited the ability to compare cost estimates. The finding that costs are higher for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction compared with patients with preserved ejection fraction highlights the need for differentiating among different heart failure types. Conclusions The review underpins the conclusion drawn in earlier reviews, namely that hospitalization costs are the key driver of heart failure-related costs. Analyses of subgroups provide a clearer understanding of sources of heterogeneity in cost data. While current cost estimates provide useful indications of economic burden, understanding the nuances of the data is critical to support its application. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-020-00952-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Systematic Review of Medical Costs Associated with Heart Failure in the USA (2014–2020)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 The article by Park et al published in this issue of JGIM attempted to discover the factors that might explain this variation in charges across hospitals. 6 The authors examined county measures of socioeconomic status, health status, health behavior, access to and quality of outpatient care, and the physical environment. They found that among 2871 hospitals nationwide, there was little statistical association between the 29 community measures they tested and hospital charges.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%