Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:18:54.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring cost-effectiveness of secondary health care: Feasibility and potential utilization of results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2005

Pirjo Räsänen ,
Harri Sintonen ,
Olli-Pekka Ryynänen ,
Marja Blom ,
Virpi Semberg-Konttinen  and
Risto P. Roine
Pirjo Räsänen
Affiliation:
Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital Group
Harri Sintonen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Olli-Pekka Ryynänen
Affiliation:
University of Kuopio
Marja Blom
Affiliation:
Academy of Finland
Virpi Semberg-Konttinen
Affiliation:
Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital Group
Risto P. Roine
Affiliation:
Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital Group
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Whether cost-effectiveness of secondary health care can be measured in a simple, yet commensurate way was studied.

Methods: Approximately 4,900 patients' health-related quality of life scores before and after treatment were measured. Used were a combination of quality of life data with diagnostic and financial indicators routinely collected in the hospital.

Results: Seventy percent of patients returned the first questionnaire and the informed written consent to participate. Of these patients, 80 percent also returned the second questionnaire sent out 3 to 12 months after treatment, depending on clinical specialty and diagnostic category. The routine of sending out questionnaires could be automated in such a way that data collection required only a limited amount of extra work. Patients were generally satisfied with the fact that the hospital was interested in their well-being also after treatment. No physician offered the chance to participate refused data collection in the patient group he or she was responsible for. The attitudes of the nursing staff were generally positive toward data collection, although it caused some extra work for some of them. The possibility of relating already routinely collected financial performance indicators with a relevant measure of treatment effectiveness, opened prospects for refined analysis of cost-effectiveness of secondary health care.

Conclusions: Routine collection of health-related quality of life data as an indicator of treatment effectiveness is feasible, requires only a small amount of extra work, and is potentially very useful when combined with existing measures of hospital performance.

Keywords

Quality of lifeQuality-adjusted life yearsCost-effectivenessTreatment outcome
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 22 - 31
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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

Blom-Lange M, Sintonen H. 1998. Measuring the effectiveness of hospital treatment. Paper presented at the 19th Nordic Health Economists' Study Group Meeting in Oslo, Norway, August 21-22, pp. 1– 10. SINTEF Unimed; 1998.
Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW. 1997. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC. 1996. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press;
Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. 2001 A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med. 33: 358– 370.Google Scholar
Kauppinen R. 1999. Cost-effectiveness of intensive patient education for guided self-management of adult novel asthmatic patients. Doctoral dissertation. Kuopio: University Printing Office;
Kopec JA, Willison KD. 2003 A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 56: 317– 325.Google Scholar
Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. 2004 National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 329: 224– 227.Google Scholar
Sintonen H. 1994. The 15D-measure of health-related quality of life. I. Reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Working Paper 41, Melbourne;
Sintonen H. 1995. The 15D measure of health-related quality of life. II Feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system. National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Working Paper 42, Melbourne;
Sintonen H. 1996; Kustannusvaikuttavuus erikoissairaanhoidossa (Cost-effectiveness in specialised health care). In: Mikkola T, Outinen M, eds. Kohti ensi vuosituhatta. Näkymiä erikoissairaanhoidon laadunhallintaan. Helsinki Stakes Raportteja 205: 32– 37.
Sintonen H. 2001 The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Ann Med. 33: 328– 336.Google Scholar
Stavem K. 1999 Reliability, validity and responsiveness of two multiattribute utility measures in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Qual Life Res. 8: 45– 54.Google Scholar
Wright CJ, Chambers GK, Robens-Paradise Y. 2002 Evaluation of indications for and outcomes of elective surgery. CMAJ. 167: 461– 466.Google Scholar