Abstract
AbstractAs healthcare costs continue to increase, studies assessing costs are becoming increasingly common, but researchers planning for studies that measure costs differences (savings) encounter a lack of literature or consensus among researchers on what constitutes “small” or “large” cost savings for common measures of resource use. Other fields of research have developed approaches to solve this type of problem. Researchers measuring improvement in quality of life or clinical assessments have defined minimally important differences (MID) which are then used to define magnitudes when planning studies. Also, studies that measure cost effectiveness use benchmarks, such as cost/QALY, but do not provide benchmarks for cost differences. In a review of the literature, we found no publications identifying indicators of magnitude for costs. However, the literature describes three approaches used to identify minimally important outcome differences: (1) anchor-based, (2) distribution-based, and (3) a consensus-based Delphi methods. In this exploratory study, we used these three approaches to derive MID for two types of resource measures common in costing studies for: (1) hospital admissions (high cost); and (2) clinic visits (low cost). We used data from two (unpublished) studies to implement the MID estimation. Because the distributional characteristics of cost measures may require substantial samples, we performed power analyses on all our estimates to illustrate the effect that the definitions of “small” and “large” costs may be expected to have on power and sample size requirements for studies. The anchor-based method, while logical and simple to implement, may be of limited value in cases where it is difficult to identify appropriate anchors. We observed some commonalities and differences for the distribution and consensus-based approaches, which require further examination. We recommend that in cases where acceptable anchors are not available, both the Delphi and the distribution-method of MID for costs be explored for convergence.
Funder
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
CEDAR Core, Medical University of South Carolina Office of Provost
Health Resources and Services Administration
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy
Reference18 articles.
1. Baicker, K., Chandra, A.: Do we spend too much on health care? NEJM 383(7), 605–608 (2020)
2. Blumethal, D., Abrams, M.: The affordable care act at 10 years: payment and delivery system reforms. NEJM 382(11), 1057–1063 (2020)
3. Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Scences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1988)
4. de Villiers, M., de Villiers, P., Kent, A.: The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Med. Teach. 27(7), 639–643 (2005)
5. Dieleman, J., Cao, J., Chapin, A., et al.: US health care spending by payer and health condition. JAMA 323(9), 863–884 (2020)
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献