The costs of caring for patients in a tertiary referral Australian intensive care unit

We determined the direct cost of an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) bed in a tertiary referral Australian ICU and the cost drivers thereof, by retrospectively analysing a number of prospectively designed Hospital- and Unit-specific electronic databases. The study period was a financial year, from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003. There were 1615 patients occupying 5692 fractional occupied bed days at a total cost of A$15,915,964, with an average length of stay of 3.69 days (range 0.5-77, median 1.06, interquartile range 2.33). The main cost driver not incorporated into this analysis was blood products (paid for centrally). The average costs of an ICU day and total stay per patient were A$2670 and A$9852 respectively. Staff-related charges were 68.76%, with consumables related expenditure making up 19.65%, clinical support services 9.55% and capital equipment 2.04%. Overtime charges and nursing agency staff were 19.4% of staff-related charges (2.9% for agency staff), 3.9% lower than expenditure associated with full-time employment charges, such as pension and leave. The emergency nature of ICU means it is difficult to accurately set a nursing establishment to cater for all admissions and therefore it is hard to decide what is an acceptable percentage difference between agency/overtime costs compared with the costs associated with full-time staff appointments. Consumable expenditure is likely to increase the most with new innovation and therapies. Using protocol driven practices may tighten and control costs incurred in ICU.

Attaching unit costs to Australia's National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing

Background: In mental health, policy-makers and planners are increasingly being asked to set priorities. This means that health economists, health services researchers and clinical investigators are being called upon to work together to define and measure costs. Typically, these researchers take available service utilisation data and convert them to costs, using a range of assumptions. There are inefficiencies, as individual groups of researchers frequently repeat essentially similar exercises in achieving this end. There are clearly areas where shared or common investment in the development of statistical software syntax, analytical frameworks and other resources could maximise the use of data. Aims of the Study: This paper reports on an Australian project in which we calculated unit costs for mental health admissions and community encounters. In reporting on these calculations, our purpose is to make the data and the resources associated with them publicly available to researchers interested in conducting economic analyses, and allow them to copy, distribute and modify them, providing that all copies and modifications are available under the same terms and conditions (i.e., in accordance with the 'Copyleft' principle), Within this context, the objectives of the paper are to: (i) introduce the 'Copyleft' principle; (ii) provide an overview of the methodology we employed to derive the unit costs; (iii) present the unit costs themselves; and (iv) examine the total and mean costs for a range of single and comorbid conditions, as an example of the kind of question that the unit cost data can be used to address. Method: We took relevant data from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB), and developed a set of unit costs for inpatient and community encounters. We then examined total and mean costs for a range of single and comorbid conditions. Results: We present the unit costs for mental health admissions and mental health community contacts. Our example, which explored the association between comorbidity and total and mean costs, suggested that comorbidly occurring conditions cost more than conditions which occur on their own. Discussion: Our unit costs, and the materials associated with them, have been published in a freely available form governed by a provision termed 'Copyleft'. They provide a valuable resource for researchers wanting to explore economic questions in mental health. Implications for Health Policies: Our unit costs provide an important resource to inform economic debate in mental health in Australia, particularly in the area of priority-setting. In the past, such debate has largely, been based on opinion. Our unit costs provide the underpinning to strengthen the evidence-base of this debate. Implications for Further Research: We would encourage other Australian researchers to make use of our unit costs in order to foster comparability across studies. We would also encourage Australian and international researchers to adopt the 'Copyleft' principle in equivalent circumstances. Furthermore, we suggest that the provision of 'Copyleft'-contingent funding to support the development of enabling resources for researchers should be considered in the planning of future large-scale collaborative survey work, both in Australia and overseas.

Carvedilol reduces the costs of medical care in severe heart failure: An economic analysis of the COPERNICUS study applied to the United Kingdom

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of carvedilol on the costs related to the treatment of severe chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: Costs for the treatment for heart failure within the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) were applied to resource utilisation data prospectively collected in all patients randomized into the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study. Unit-specific, per them (hospital bed day) costs were used to calculate expenditures due to hospitalizations. We also included costs of carvedilol treatment, general practitioner surgery/office visits, hospital out-patient clinic visits and nursing home care based on estimates derived from validated patterns of clinical practice in the UK. Results: The estimated cost of carvedilol therapy and related ambulatory care for the 1156 patients assigned to active treatment was 530,771 pound (44.89 pound per patient/month of follow-up). However, patients assigned to carvedilol were hospitalised less often and accumulated fewer and less expensive days of admission. Consequently, the total estimated cost of hospital care was 3.49 pound million in the carvedilol group compared with 4.24 pound million for the 1133 patients in the placebo arm. The cost of post-discharge care was also less in the carvedilol than in the placebo group (479,200 pound vs. 548,300) pound. Overall, the cost per patient treated in the carvedilol group was 3948 pound compared to 4279 pound in the placebo group. This equated to a cost of 385.98 pound vs. 434.18 pound, respectively, per patient/month of follow-up: an 11.1% reduction in health care costs in favour of carvedilol. Conclusions: These findings suggest that not only can carvedilol treatment increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in patients with severe CHF but that it can also cut costs in the process.