Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 52–59 | Cite as

Challenges of Costing a Surgical Procedure in a Lower–Middle-Income Country

  • Chanil EkanayakeEmail author
  • Arunasalam Pathmeswaran
  • Sanjeewa Kularatna
  • Rasika Herath
  • Prasantha Wijesinghe
Original Scientific Report
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

Background

It is vital to enquire into cost of health care to ensure that maximum value for money is obtained with available resources; however, there is a dearth of information on cost of health care in lower–middle-income countries (LMICs). Our aim was to develop a reproducible costing method for three routes of hysterectomy in benign uterine conditions: total abdominal (TAH), non-descent vaginal (NDVH) and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH).

Methods

A societal perspective with a micro-costing approach was applied to find out direct and indirect costs. A total of 147 patients were recruited from a district general hospital (Mannar) and a tertiary care hospital (Ragama). Costs incurred from preoperative period to convalescence included direct costs of labour, equipment, investigations, medications and utilities, and indirect costs of out-of-pocket expenses, productivity losses, carer costs and travelling. Time-driven activity-based costing was used for labour, and top-down micro-costing was used for utilities.

Results

The total cost [(interquartile range), number] of TAH was USD 339 [(308–397), n = 24] versus USD 338 [(312–422), n = 25], NDVH was USD 315 [(316–541), n = 23] versus USD 357 [(282–739), n = 26] and TLH was USD 393 [(338–446), n = 24] versus USD 429 [(390–504), n = 25] at Mannar and Ragama, respectively. The direct cost of TAH, NDVH and TLH was similar between the two centres, whilst indirect cost was related to the setting rather than the route of hysterectomy.

Conclusions

The costing method used in this study overcomes logistical difficulties in a LMIC and can serve as a guide for clinicians and policy makers in similar settings.

Trial registration

The study was registered in the Sri Lanka clinical trials registry (SLCTR/2016/020) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (U1111-1194-8422) on 26 July 2016.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Regional Director of Health Services-Mannar; Director, District General Hospital-Mannar; Director, North Colombo Teaching Hospital, Ragama. We acknowledge the contribution of the study participants and the staff of the two respective units. A special note of appreciation goes to the research assistants, Dr. Rienzie Pieris and Dr. Lakshika Liyanage.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Council Grant 16-086 from National Research Council of Sri Lanka.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was obtained from the ethics review committee of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya (P/12/01/2016). All participants provided informed written consent to participate.

Supplementary material

268_2018_4773_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)
268_2018_4773_MOESM2_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 29 kb)
268_2018_4773_MOESM3_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 27 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Fetter J, Shin Y, Freeman JL et al (1980) Case mix definition by diagnosis-related groups. Med Care 18(2):1–53Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Busse R, Geissler A, Aaviksoo A et al (2013) Diagnosis related groups in Europe: moving towards transparency, efficiency, and quality in hospitals? BMJ (Clin Res ed.) 347(7916):1–7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (2015) The AR-DRG classification system. https://www.ihpa.gov.au/admitted-acute-care/ar-drg-classification-system. Accessed 19 April 2017
  4. 4.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G et al (2005) Cost analysis. In: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford pp 55–102Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme J, et al (2011) Defining, measuring, and valuing costs. In: Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care, Oxford University Press, Oxford pp 119–142Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Negrini D, Kettle A, Sheppard L et al (2004) The cost of a hospital ward in Europe. J Health Org Manag 18(3):195–206.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260410548437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lipscomb J, Yabroff KR, Brown ML et al (2009) Health care costing: data, methods, current applications. Med Care 47(7 Suppl 1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tan SS, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM et al (2009) Comparing methodologies for the cost estimation of hospital services. Eur J Health Econ 10(1):39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mercier G, Naro G (2014) Costing hospital surgery services: the method matters. PLoS ONE 9(5):e97290.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Riewpaiboon A, Malaroje S, Kongsawatt S (2007) Effect of costing methods on unit cost of hospital medical services. Trop Med Int Health 12(4):554–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larsen J, Skjoldborg US (2004) Comparing systems for costing hospital treatments: the case of stable angina pectoris. Health Policy 67(3):293–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hendriks ME, Kundu P, Boers AC et al (2014) Step-by-step guideline for disease-specific costing studies in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed methodology. Glob Health Action 28(7):23573.  https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.23573.eCollection2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grimes CE, Henry JA, Maraka J et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness of surgery in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. World J Surg 38(1):252–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ranson MK, John KR (2002) Quality of hysterectomy care in rural Gujarat: the role of community-based health insurance. Reprod Health Matters 10(20):70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khan A, Zaman S (2010) Costs of vaginal delivery and Caesarean section at a tertiary level public hospital in Islamabad, Pakistan. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 10:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ekanayake CD, Pathmeswaran A, Kularatna S et al (2017) Cost evaluation, quality of life and pelvic organ function of three approaches to hysterectomy for benign uterine conditions: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 18(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parliment of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (2016) The national minimum wage of workers act, no.3 of 2016. Sri LankaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chatterjee S, Laxminarayan R (2013) Costs of surgical procedures in Indian hospitals. BMJ Open 3(6):e002844.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wordsworth S, Ludbrook A, Caskey F et al (2005) Collecting unit cost data in multicentre studies: creating comparable methods. Eur J Health Econ 6(1):38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ottosen C, Lingman G, Ottosen L et al (2000) Three methods for hysterectomy: a randomised, prospective study of short term outcome. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 107(11):5–1380Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chanil Ekanayake
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arunasalam Pathmeswaran
    • 2
  • Sanjeewa Kularatna
    • 3
  • Rasika Herath
    • 4
  • Prasantha Wijesinghe
    • 4
  1. 1.District General HospitalMannarSri Lanka
  2. 2.Department of Public Health, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of KelaniyaKelaniyaSri Lanka
  3. 3.Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation, School of Public Health and Social ServicesQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of KelaniyaKelaniyaSri Lanka

Personalised recommendations