A microcosting study of diagnostic tests for the detection of coronary artery disease in the Netherlands

• Published in: European journal of radiology 2009-10, Vol.72 (1), p.98-103
• Main Authors: Tan, S.S, Oppe, M, Zoet-Nugteren, S.K, Niezen, R.A, Kofflard, M.J.M, Ten Cate, F.J, Roijen, L. Hakkaart-van
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Cardiology. Vascular system; Coronary Angiography - economics; Coronary Angiography - utilization; Coronary Artery Disease - diagnosis; Coronary Artery Disease - economics; Coronary Artery Disease - epidemiology; Coronary heart disease; Cost analysis; Cost effectiveness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diagnostic strategy; Diagnostic test; Echocardiography - economics; Echocardiography - utilization; Electrocardiography - economics; Electrocardiography - utilization; Female; Health Care Costs - statistics & numerical data; Heart; Humans; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Male; Medical sciences; Microcosting; Netherlands - epidemiology; Prevalence; Radiology; Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon - economics; Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon - utilization
• ISSN: 0720-048X; 1872-7727
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.07.002

Abstract Objective The primary aim of the present study was to calculate the actual costs of four diagnostic tests for the detection of coronary artery disease in the Netherlands using a microcosting methodology. As a secondary objective, the cost effectiveness of eight diagnostic strategies was examined, using microcosting and reimbursement fees subsequently as the cost estimate. Design A multicenter, retrospective cost analysis from a hospital perspective. Setting The study was conducted in three general hospitals in the Netherlands for 2006. Interventions Exercise electrocardiography (exECG), stress echocardiography (sECHO), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and coronary angiography (CA). Results The actual costs of exECG, sECHO, SPECT and CA were €33, 216, 614 and 1300 respectively. For all diagnostic tests, labour and indirect cost components (overheads and capital) together accounted for over 75% of the total costs. Consumables played a relatively important role in SPECT (14%). Hotel and nutrition were only applicable to SPECT and CA. Diagnostic services were solely performed for CA, but their costs were negligible (2%). Using microcosting estimates, exECG–sECHO–SPECT–CA was the most and CA the least cost effective strategy (€397 and 1302 per accurately diagnosed patient). Using reimbursement fees, exECG–sECHO–CA was most and SPECT–CA least cost effective (€147 and 567 per accurately diagnosed patient). Conclusions The use of microcosting estimates instead of reimbursement fees led to different conclusions regarding the relative cost effectiveness of alternative strategies.