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
. 2024 Oct 19:13:100605.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100605. eCollection 2024 Dec.

True cost estimation of common imaging procedures for cost-effectiveness analysis - insights from a Singapore hospital emergency department

Yi Xiang Tay  1   2 , Marcus Eh Ong  3   4 , Shane J Foley  2 , Robert Chun Chen  3   5   6 , Lai Peng Chan  3   7 , Ronan Killeen  8   9 , May San Mak  3   7 , Jonathan P McNulty  2 , Kularatna Sanjeewa  3
Affiliations

True cost estimation of common imaging procedures for cost-effectiveness analysis - insights from a Singapore hospital emergency department

Yi Xiang Tay et al. Eur J Radiol Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: There is a lack of clear and consistent cost reporting for cost-effectiveness analysis in radiology. Estimates are often obtained using costing derived from hospital charge records. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of hospital charge records compared to a Singapore hospital's true diagnostic imaging costs.

Methods: A seven-step process involving a bottom-up micro-costing approach was devised and followed to calculate the cost of imaging using actual data from a clinical setting. We retrieved electronic data from a random sample of 96 emergency department patients who had CT brain, CT and X-ray cervical spine, and X-ray lumbar spine performed to calculate the parameters required for cost estimation. We adjusted imaging duration and number of performing personnel to account for variations.

Results: Our approach determined the average cost for the following imaging procedures: CT brain (€154.00), CT and X-ray cervical spine (€177.14 and €68.22), and X-ray lumbar spine (€79.85). We found that the true cost of both conventional radiography procedures was marginally higher than the subsidized patient charge, and all costs were slightly lower than the private patient charge except for X-ray lumbar spine (€73.49 vs.€79.85). We identified larger differences in cost for both CT procedures and smaller differences in cost for conventional radiography procedures, depending on the patient's private or subsidized status. For private status, the differences were: CT brain (Min: €194.20; Max: €264.40), CT cervical spine (Min: €219.54; Max: €399.05), X-ray cervical spine (Min: €5.27; Max: €61.94), and X-ray lumbar spine (Min: €6.36; Max: €108.04), while for subsidized status, the differences were: CT brain (Min: €7.56; Max: €62.64), CT cervical spine (Min: €47.02; Max: €132.49), X-ray cervical spine (Min: €15.88; Max: €103.44), and X-ray lumbar spine (Min: €13.66; Max: €149.44). Considering examination duration and the number of personnel engaged in a procedure, there were significant variations in the minimum, average, and maximum imaging costs.

Conclusion: There is a modest gap between hospital charges and actual costs, and we must therefore exercise caution and recognize the limitations of utilizing hospital charge records as absolute metrics for cost-effectiveness analysis. Our detailed approach can potentially enable more accurate imaging cost determination for future studies.

Keywords: Cost; Cost savings; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Diagnostic imaging; Emergency Department.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Yi Xiang Tay reports financial support was provided by SingHealth Group. Yi Xiang Tay reports financial support was provided by Singapore General Hospital. Ronan Killeen reports a relationship with xWave Technologies Ltd that includes: consulting or advisory and equity or stocks. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

    1. Kjelle E., Brandsaeter I.O., Andersen E.R., Hofmann B.M. Cost of low-value imaging worldwide: a systematic review. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy. 2024 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dijk S.W., Kroencke T., Wollny C., Barkhausen J., Jansen O., Halfmann M.C., et al. Medical imaging decision and support (MIDAS): study protocol for a multi-centre cluster randomized trial evaluating the ESR iGuide. Conte Clin. Trials. 2023;135 - PubMed
    1. Chawla A., Gunderman R.B. Defensive medicine: prevalence, implications, and recommendations. Acad. Radiol. 2008;15(7):948–949. - PubMed
    1. Reeves A., Gourtsoyannis Y., Basu S., McCoy D., McKee M., Stuckler D. Financing universal health coverage--effects of alternative tax structures on public health systems: cross-national modelling in 89 low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet. 2015;386(9990):274–280. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schulman K., Narayan A. Employer-based health insurance and employee compensation. JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4(3) - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources