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 Dec 18;22(1):92.
doi: 10.1186/s12962-024-00601-9.

Validation of the PECUNIA reference unit costs templates in Spain: a useful tool for multi-national economic evaluations of health technologies

Lidia García-Pérez  1 , Renata Linertová  2 , Aránzazu Hernández-Yumar  2 , Cristina Valcárcel-Nazco  2 , Jhoner Perdomo-Vielma  2 , Pedro Serrano-Aguilar  2 , Mencia R Gutierrez-Colosia  3 , Luis Salvador-Carulla  4 , Enrique Fernández-Vega  5 , Susanne Mayer  6 , Judit Simon  6 ; PECUNIA Group
Collaborators, Affiliations

Validation of the PECUNIA reference unit costs templates in Spain: a useful tool for multi-national economic evaluations of health technologies

Lidia García-Pérez et al. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. .

Abstract

Background: The PECUNIA Project was funded by the H2020 programme in which 10 partners from six countries participated. The aim was to develop standardized, harmonized and validated methods and tools to calculate costs in different sectors (such as health and social care, education among others), with the purpose of facilitating comparability of economic evaluations of health technologies across European countries. In this paper we report the first validation of the developed reference unit cost templates in Spain.

Methods: The evaluation of the PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates involved usability, transferability and feasibility assessment. Applicability tests were performed to estimate the cost of a selection of 15 resource items by means of the RUC templates in Spain and in four Spanish regions. External validation involved comparison with existing unit costs.

Results: It was possible to estimate the cost of five services (dental care and general practitioner in the Canary Islands, general practitioner in Spain [tariffs], health-related day care centre and education services provided in a special education school in the Basque Country), car vandalism as an example of potential health-related consequences, and informal care in Spain. The templates were feasible although data completeness depended on the type of data needed to estimate the costs. The templates are transferable across countries although comparability depends on the services available in each jurisdiction.

Conclusions: The PECUNIA RUC Templates are free and feasible tools to estimate comparable reference unit costs across countries. Although more validation exercises are needed, they seem useful tools to perform robust multi-national economic evaluations and increase the transferability of cost-effectiveness studies of health technologies in Europe. However, they cannot compensate for the lack of data across jurisdictions.

Keywords: Costing; Economic evaluation; Europe; Services; Societal perspective; Spain; Unit costs; Validation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethics approval was not needed at the time given the nature of the study. Ethical guidelines allowed implied or tacit consent by answering and participating in proposed activities (emails, filling in templates, focus groups) as no personal data was collected. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Drummond M, Barbieri M, Cook J, Glick HA, Lis J, Malik F, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):409–18. - DOI - PubMed
    1. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 7, Subgroup 3, Heintz E, Gerber-Grote A, Ghabri S, Hamers FF, Rupel VP, et al. Is there a european view on health economic evaluations? Results from a synopsis of methodological guidelines used in the EUnetHTA partner countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(1):59–76. - PubMed
    1. Heupink LF, Peacocke EF, Sæterdal I, Chola L, Fronsdal K. Considerations for transferability of health technology assessments: a scoping review of tools, methods, and practices. Vol. 38, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. Cambridge University Press; 2022. - PubMed
    1. Fischer C, Mayer S, Perić N, Simon J. Harmonization issues in unit costing of service use for multi-country, multi-sectoral health economic evaluations: a scoping review. Health Econ Rev. 2022;12(1):42. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goeree R, He J, O’Reilly D, Tarride JE, Xie F, Burke. Transferability of health technology assessments and economic evaluations: a systematic review of approaches for assessment and application. ClinicoEconomics Outcomes Res. 2011;89. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources