Time-driven activity-based costing of low-dose-rate and high-dose-rate brachytherapy for low-risk prostate cancer

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Annette M. Ilg¹ ; ^{amilg@bidmc.harvard.edu} ; Aaron A. Laviana¹ ; Mitchell Kamrava² ; Darlene Veruttipong² ; Michael Steinberg² ; Sang-June Park² ; Michael A. Burke³ ; Douglas Niedzwiecki⁴ ; Patrick A. Kupelian² ; Christopher Saigal¹
• 关键词：Time-driven activity-based costing ; Brachytherapy ; Value-based care ; Prostate neoplasms ; Cost analysis
• 刊名：Brachytherapy
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：November-December 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：15
• 期：6
• 页码：760-767
• 全文大小：645 K
• 卷排序：15

文摘

Cost estimates through traditional hospital accounting systems are often arbitrary and ambiguous. We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to determine the true cost of low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for prostate cancer and demonstrate opportunities for cost containment at an academic referral center.Methods and MaterialsWe implemented TDABC for patients treated with I-125, preplanned LDR and computed tomography based HDR brachytherapy with two implants from initial consultation through 12-month followup. We constructed detailed process maps for provision of both HDR and LDR. Personnel, space, equipment, and material costs of each step were identified and used to derive capacity cost rates, defined as price per minute. Each capacity cost rate was then multiplied by the relevant process time and products were summed to determine total cost of care.ResultsThe calculated cost to deliver HDR was greater than LDR by $2,668.86 ($9,538 vs. $6,869). The first and second HDR treatment day cost $3,999.67 and $3,955.67, whereas LDR was delivered on one treatment day and cost $3,887.55. The greatest overall cost driver for both LDR and HDR was personnel at 65.6% ($4,506.82) and 67.0% ($6,387.27) of the total cost. After personnel costs, disposable materials contributed the second most for LDR ($1,920.66, 28.0%) and for HDR ($2,295.94, 24.0%).ConclusionsWith TDABC, the true costs to deliver LDR and HDR from the health system perspective were derived. Analysis by physicians and hospital administrators regarding the cost of care afforded redesign opportunities including delivering HDR as one implant. Our work underscores the need to assess clinical outcomes to understand the true difference in value between these modalities.