Interpreting cost analyses of clinical interventions

E. Andrew Balas, Rainer A.C. Kretschmer, Wolfgang Gnann, David A. West, Suzanne Austin Boren, Robert M. Centor, Michael Nerlich, Mahendra Gupta, Timothy D. West, Naomi S. Soderstrom

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. In the present era of cost containment, physicians need reliable data about specific interventions. The objectives of this study were to assist practitioners in interpretation of economic analyses and estimation of their own costs of implementing recommended interventions. Data Sources. MEDLINE search from 1966 through 1995 using the text words cost or expense and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms costs and cost analysis, cost control, cost of illness, cost savings, or cost-benefit analysis. Study Selection. The 4 eligibility criteria were clinical trial with random assignment; health care quality improvement intervention tested; effects measured on the process or outcome of care; and cost calculation mentioned in the report. Data Extraction. After independent abstraction and after consensus development, financial data were entered into a costing protocol to determine which costs related to the intervention were provided. Data Synthesis. Of 181 articles, 97 (53.6%) included actual numbers on the costs of the intervention. Of 97 articles analyzed, the most frequently reported cost figures were in the category of operating expenses (direct cost, 61.9%; labor, 42.3%; and supplies, 32.0%). General overhead was not presented in 91 (93.8%) of the 97 studies. Only 14 (14.4%) of the 97 studies mentioned start-up costs. The text word $ in the abstract and the most useful MeSH index term of cost-benefit analysis appeared with nearly equal frequency in the articles that included actual cost data (37.1% vs 35.1%). Two thirds of articles indexed with the MeSH term cost control did not include cost figures. Conclusions. Statements regarding cost without substantiating data are made habitually in reports of clinical trials. In clinical trial reports presenting data on expenditures, start-up costs and general overhead are frequently disregarded. Practitioners can detect missing information by placing cost data in a standardized protocol. The costing protocol of this study can help bridge care delivery and economic analyses.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)54-57
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume279
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 7 1998

Fingerprint

Costs and Cost Analysis
Medical Subject Headings
Cost Control
Clinical Trials
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Economics
Cost of Illness
Cost Savings
Information Storage and Retrieval
Health Expenditures
Quality Improvement
MEDLINE
Consensus
Delivery of Health Care
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Balas, E. A., Kretschmer, R. A. C., Gnann, W., West, D. A., Boren, S. A., Centor, R. M., ... Soderstrom, N. S. (1998). Interpreting cost analyses of clinical interventions. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(1), 54-57. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.1.54

Interpreting cost analyses of clinical interventions. / Balas, E. Andrew; Kretschmer, Rainer A.C.; Gnann, Wolfgang; West, David A.; Boren, Suzanne Austin; Centor, Robert M.; Nerlich, Michael; Gupta, Mahendra; West, Timothy D.; Soderstrom, Naomi S.

In: Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 279, No. 1, 07.01.1998, p. 54-57.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Balas, EA, Kretschmer, RAC, Gnann, W, West, DA, Boren, SA, Centor, RM, Nerlich, M, Gupta, M, West, TD & Soderstrom, NS 1998, 'Interpreting cost analyses of clinical interventions', Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 279, no. 1, pp. 54-57. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.1.54
Balas, E. Andrew ; Kretschmer, Rainer A.C. ; Gnann, Wolfgang ; West, David A. ; Boren, Suzanne Austin ; Centor, Robert M. ; Nerlich, Michael ; Gupta, Mahendra ; West, Timothy D. ; Soderstrom, Naomi S. / Interpreting cost analyses of clinical interventions. In: Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998 ; Vol. 279, No. 1. pp. 54-57.
@article{41048252fa2a467fbc5e7489667b9183,
title = "Interpreting cost analyses of clinical interventions",
abstract = "Objective. In the present era of cost containment, physicians need reliable data about specific interventions. The objectives of this study were to assist practitioners in interpretation of economic analyses and estimation of their own costs of implementing recommended interventions. Data Sources. MEDLINE search from 1966 through 1995 using the text words cost or expense and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms costs and cost analysis, cost control, cost of illness, cost savings, or cost-benefit analysis. Study Selection. The 4 eligibility criteria were clinical trial with random assignment; health care quality improvement intervention tested; effects measured on the process or outcome of care; and cost calculation mentioned in the report. Data Extraction. After independent abstraction and after consensus development, financial data were entered into a costing protocol to determine which costs related to the intervention were provided. Data Synthesis. Of 181 articles, 97 (53.6{\%}) included actual numbers on the costs of the intervention. Of 97 articles analyzed, the most frequently reported cost figures were in the category of operating expenses (direct cost, 61.9{\%}; labor, 42.3{\%}; and supplies, 32.0{\%}). General overhead was not presented in 91 (93.8{\%}) of the 97 studies. Only 14 (14.4{\%}) of the 97 studies mentioned start-up costs. The text word $ in the abstract and the most useful MeSH index term of cost-benefit analysis appeared with nearly equal frequency in the articles that included actual cost data (37.1{\%} vs 35.1{\%}). Two thirds of articles indexed with the MeSH term cost control did not include cost figures. Conclusions. Statements regarding cost without substantiating data are made habitually in reports of clinical trials. In clinical trial reports presenting data on expenditures, start-up costs and general overhead are frequently disregarded. Practitioners can detect missing information by placing cost data in a standardized protocol. The costing protocol of this study can help bridge care delivery and economic analyses.",
author = "Balas, {E. Andrew} and Kretschmer, {Rainer A.C.} and Wolfgang Gnann and West, {David A.} and Boren, {Suzanne Austin} and Centor, {Robert M.} and Michael Nerlich and Mahendra Gupta and West, {Timothy D.} and Soderstrom, {Naomi S.}",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1001/jama.279.1.54",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "279",
pages = "54--57",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpreting cost analyses of clinical interventions

AU - Balas, E. Andrew

AU - Kretschmer, Rainer A.C.

AU - Gnann, Wolfgang

AU - West, David A.

AU - Boren, Suzanne Austin

AU - Centor, Robert M.

AU - Nerlich, Michael

AU - Gupta, Mahendra

AU - West, Timothy D.

AU - Soderstrom, Naomi S.

PY - 1998/1/7

Y1 - 1998/1/7

N2 - Objective. In the present era of cost containment, physicians need reliable data about specific interventions. The objectives of this study were to assist practitioners in interpretation of economic analyses and estimation of their own costs of implementing recommended interventions. Data Sources. MEDLINE search from 1966 through 1995 using the text words cost or expense and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms costs and cost analysis, cost control, cost of illness, cost savings, or cost-benefit analysis. Study Selection. The 4 eligibility criteria were clinical trial with random assignment; health care quality improvement intervention tested; effects measured on the process or outcome of care; and cost calculation mentioned in the report. Data Extraction. After independent abstraction and after consensus development, financial data were entered into a costing protocol to determine which costs related to the intervention were provided. Data Synthesis. Of 181 articles, 97 (53.6%) included actual numbers on the costs of the intervention. Of 97 articles analyzed, the most frequently reported cost figures were in the category of operating expenses (direct cost, 61.9%; labor, 42.3%; and supplies, 32.0%). General overhead was not presented in 91 (93.8%) of the 97 studies. Only 14 (14.4%) of the 97 studies mentioned start-up costs. The text word $ in the abstract and the most useful MeSH index term of cost-benefit analysis appeared with nearly equal frequency in the articles that included actual cost data (37.1% vs 35.1%). Two thirds of articles indexed with the MeSH term cost control did not include cost figures. Conclusions. Statements regarding cost without substantiating data are made habitually in reports of clinical trials. In clinical trial reports presenting data on expenditures, start-up costs and general overhead are frequently disregarded. Practitioners can detect missing information by placing cost data in a standardized protocol. The costing protocol of this study can help bridge care delivery and economic analyses.

AB - Objective. In the present era of cost containment, physicians need reliable data about specific interventions. The objectives of this study were to assist practitioners in interpretation of economic analyses and estimation of their own costs of implementing recommended interventions. Data Sources. MEDLINE search from 1966 through 1995 using the text words cost or expense and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms costs and cost analysis, cost control, cost of illness, cost savings, or cost-benefit analysis. Study Selection. The 4 eligibility criteria were clinical trial with random assignment; health care quality improvement intervention tested; effects measured on the process or outcome of care; and cost calculation mentioned in the report. Data Extraction. After independent abstraction and after consensus development, financial data were entered into a costing protocol to determine which costs related to the intervention were provided. Data Synthesis. Of 181 articles, 97 (53.6%) included actual numbers on the costs of the intervention. Of 97 articles analyzed, the most frequently reported cost figures were in the category of operating expenses (direct cost, 61.9%; labor, 42.3%; and supplies, 32.0%). General overhead was not presented in 91 (93.8%) of the 97 studies. Only 14 (14.4%) of the 97 studies mentioned start-up costs. The text word $ in the abstract and the most useful MeSH index term of cost-benefit analysis appeared with nearly equal frequency in the articles that included actual cost data (37.1% vs 35.1%). Two thirds of articles indexed with the MeSH term cost control did not include cost figures. Conclusions. Statements regarding cost without substantiating data are made habitually in reports of clinical trials. In clinical trial reports presenting data on expenditures, start-up costs and general overhead are frequently disregarded. Practitioners can detect missing information by placing cost data in a standardized protocol. The costing protocol of this study can help bridge care delivery and economic analyses.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=18144448150&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=18144448150&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jama.279.1.54

DO - 10.1001/jama.279.1.54

M3 - Review article

C2 - 9424045

AN - SCOPUS:18144448150

VL - 279

SP - 54

EP - 57

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 1

ER -