Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Jan 6;11(1):1.
doi: 10.1186/s13561-020-00298-5.

Micro-costing in health and medicine: a critical appraisal

Xiao Xu  1 , Christina M Lazar  2 , Jennifer Prah Ruger  3
Affiliations
Review

Micro-costing in health and medicine: a critical appraisal

Xiao Xu et al. Health Econ Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Concerns about rising health care costs require rigorous economic study to inform clinical and policy decision-making. Micro-costing is a cost estimation methodology employing detailed resource utilization and unit cost data to generate precise estimates of economic costs. Micro-costing studies have not been critically appraised.

Methods: Critical appraisal of micro-costing studies in English. Studies fully or predominantly employing micro-costing were appraised for methodological and reporting quality through economic evaluation guidelines (Evers, Drummond, Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), Fukuda and Imanaka checklists). Following the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, micro-costing studies were defined as involving "direct enumeration and costing out of every input consumed in the treatment of a particular patient."

Results: Full or predominant micro-costing studies included neoplasms (18.5%), infectious and parasitic diseases (17.9%), and diseases of circulatory systems (10.8%) as the most studied diseases. 36.9% were in the United States and 34.9% were in Europe. 33.8% did not report analytic perspective, 32.8% did not report price year, 3.6% did not inflation adjust cost data, and 44.1% did not specify inflation adjustment. 86.2% did not separately report unit costs and resource utilization quantity, 14.9 and 19.5% did not provide sufficient detail to assess appropriateness of measured physical units or valued costs.

Conclusions: Micro-costing studies vary widely in methodological and reporting quality, highlighting the need to standardize methods and reporting of micro-costing studies and develop tools for their evaluation.

Keywords: Economic evaluation; Health and medicine; Micro-costing; Resource allocation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests to declare.

References

    1. Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
    1. Drummond M, Jefferson T. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ economic evaluation working party. BMJ. 1996;313:275–283. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:240–245. doi: 10.1017/S0266462305050324. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E. ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines-CHEERS Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) - Explanation and elaboration: A report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16:231–250. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. 2. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016.

LinkOut - more resources