Patient-level costs in intensive care: a case report of a standardized and scalable approach. (20th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bezerra, I; Rodrigues, M; Sousa, EM; Malicia, J; Prestes, R; Rêgo, RC; Mendes, A; Sousa, A; Nassar Junior, AP; Pereira, AJ
• Is Part Of: European journal of public health. Volume 31(2021)Supplement 3
• Publication Date: 2021-10-20
• Subjects: Epidemiology -- Europe -- Periodicals; Public health -- Europe -- Periodicals; 362.109405
• DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckab165.628
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1101-1262

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Intensive care units (ICU) costs account to up to 30% of hospital budgets. Nevertheless, determination of their costs is complex and without agreed methodology, specially when considering patient-level costs (Value-Based Healthcare). Methods: Case report of a costing methodology implementation, in a 15-bed ICU, in a public, teaching hospital at Teresina/Piauí-Brazil (as part of a broader initiative, with 10 hospitals from all Brazilian regions). All costs incurred during ICU stay were measured from the hospital perspective, applying absorption costing method, by using a standardized approach and a specific central IT system. The study was carried out from Oct/19-Sep/20, including 613 patients, and a team of 10 researchers working with 4 teams of the local hospital (costs, IT, ICU and managers). Results: ICU fixed costs (personnel, overheads, energy/water, depreciation, non-tracked drugs/medical materials), were divided by service capacity (total bed-hours) for calculation of the costs/minute. Costs were then allocated in the patient level multiplying costs/minute by the ICU length of stay. Variable costs (lab/image tests, transfusions, hemodialysis, and traceable medical materials/drugs) were directly allocated, multiplying the unit cost by the volume consumed per patient. A mini-survey applied 1-year after showed that both cost researchers and hospital staff agreed on the main challenges in measuring patient-level costs (fragmented process; fixed costs available only at the hospital level; lack of control on cost-drivers; indirect costs not considered; any reference for lab/image costs) and that the approach was sufficient to overcome them. The local team also reported increased awareness about the importance of patient-level costs after the experience. Conclusions: The proposed costing approach allowed the assessment of estimated total costs of each ICU admission. We believe this model can be easily and quickly replicated in other similar scenarios. Key messages: ICU costs account to up to 30% of hospital budgets. Nevertheless, determination of their costs is complex and without agreed methodology, specially when considering patient-level costs. The proposed costing approach allowed the assessment of estimated total costs of each ICU admission. We believe this model can be easily and quickly replicated in other similar scenarios.