Skip to main content
Log in

Standardisation of Costs

The Dutch Manual for Costing in Economic Evaluations

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The lack of a uniform costing methodology is often considered a weakness of economic evaluations that hinders the interpretation and comparison of studies. Standardisation is therefore an important topic within the methodology of economic evaluations and in national guidelines that formulate the formal requirements for studies to be considered when deciding on the reimbursement of new medical therapies. Recently, the Dutch Manual for Costing: Methods and Standard Costs for Economic Evaluations in Health Care (further referred to as ‘the manual’) has been published, in addition to the Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. The objectives of this article are to describe the main content of the manual and to discuss some key issues of the manual in relation to the standardisation of costs.

The manual introduces a six-step procedure for costing. These steps concern: (i) the scope of the study; (ii) the choice of cost categories; (iii) the identification of units; (iv) the measurement of resource use; (v) the monetary valuation of units; and (vi) the calculation of unit costs. Each step consists of a number of choices and these together define the approach taken. In addition to a description of the costing process, five key issues regarding the standardisation of costs are distinguished. These are the use of basic principles, methods for measurement and valuation, standard costs (average prices of healthcare services), standard values (values that can be used within unit cost calculations), and the reporting of outcomes. The use of the basic principles, standard values and minimal requirements for reporting outcomes, as defined in the manual, are obligatory in studies that support submissions to acquire reimbursement for new pharmaceuticals. Whether to use standard costs, and the choice of a particular method to measure or value costs, is left mainly to the investigator, depending on the specific study setting.

In conclusion, several instruments are available to increase standardisation in costing methodology among studies. These instruments have to be used in such a way that a balance is found between standardisation and the specific setting in which a study is performed. The way in which the Dutch manual tries to reach this balance can serve as an illustration for other countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies: recommendations from the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11: 159–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Haycox A, Walley T. Pharmacoeconomics: evaluating the evaluators. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 43: 451–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Drummond MF, Brandt A, Luce BR, et al. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9 (1): 26–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rovira J. Standardization of the economic evaluation of health technologies, European developments. Med Care 1996; 34 (12 Suppl.): DS182–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mason J. The generalisability of pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11 (6): 503-14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. 1st ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  8. Langley PC. The November 1995 revised Australian guidelines for the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 (4): 341–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Torrance GW, Blaker D, Detsky A, et al. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 (6): 535–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jacobs P, Bachynsky J, Baladi J-F. A comparative review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (3): 182–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rovira J, Antonanzas F. Economic analysis of health technologies and programmes. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (3): 245–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services. Manual of resource items and their associated costs. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  13. Baladi JF. A guidance document for the costing process. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  14. Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Manual for costing: methods and standard costs for economic evaluations in health care [in Dutch]. Amstelveen: College voor zorgverzekeringen, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  15. Riteco JA, de Heij LJM, van Luijn JCF, et al. Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. Amstelveen: College Voor Zorgverzekeringen, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jacobs P, Baladi J-F. Biases in cost measurement for economic evaluation studies in health care. Health Econ 1996; 5: 525–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Goeree R, Gafni A, Hannah M, et al. Hospital selection for unit cost estimates in multicentre economic evaluations; does the choice of hospitals make a difference. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 561–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Horngren CT. Cost accounting. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dutch Ministry of Finance. Textbook financial governmental information and administration. The Hague: Dutch Ministry of Finance, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  20. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  21. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Patient and informal caregiver time in cost-effectiveness analysis: a response to the recommendations of the Washington Panel. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14 (3): 505–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Johannesson M. Avoiding double-counting in pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 11 (5): 385–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM. Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med 1992; 34: 1005–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Commissie Modernisering Curatieve Zorg. Gedeelde Zorg: Betere Zorg; Achtergrondstudies Van de Commissie Modernisering Curatieve Zorg. Roosendaal: Ammerlaan Pre-Press, 1994

  27. Groeneveld JF. Specialistenhonoraria. Medisch Contact 1996; 27: 919–21

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mason JA, Drummond MF. Reporting guidelines for economic studies. Health Econ 1995; 4: 85–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 1996; 276: 1339–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Jacobs P, Roos NP. Standard cost lists for healthcare in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 551–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

There was no financial support specifically for this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan B. Oostenbrink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oostenbrink, J.B., Koopmanschap, M.A. & Rutten, F.F.H. Standardisation of Costs. Pharmacoeconomics 20, 443–454 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220070-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220070-00002

Keywords

Navigation