Impact of specialist ataxia centres on health service resource utilisation and costs across Europe: cross-sectional survey (original) (raw)

Cost of illness: An international comparison

Health Policy, 2008

To assess international comparability of general cost of illness (COI) studies and to examine the extent to which COI estimates differ and why.Five general COI studies were examined. COI estimates were classified by health provider using the system of health accounts (SHA). Provider groups fully included in all studies and matching SHA estimates were selected to create a common data set. In order to explain cost differences descriptive analyses were carried out on a number of determinants.In general similar COI patterns emerged for these countries, despite their health care system differences. In addition to these similarities, certain significant disease-specific differences were found. Comparisons of nursing and residential care expenditure by disease showed major variation. Epidemiological explanations of differences were hardly found, whereas demographic differences were influential. Significant treatment variation appeared from hospital data.A systematic analysis of COI data from different countries may assist in comparing health expenditure internationally. All cost data dimensions shed greater light on the effects of health care system differences within various aspects of health care. Still, the study's objectives can only be reached by a further improvement of the SHA, by international use of the SHA in COI studies and by a standardized methodology.

International comparison of health care systems

The International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 2004

The most frequently used bases for comparing international health care resources are health care expenditures, measured either as a fraction of gross domestic product (GDP) or per capita. There are several possible reasons for this, including the widespread availability of historic expenditure figures; the attractiveness of collapsing resource data into a common unit of measurement; and the present focus among OECD member countries and other governments on containing health care costs. Despite important criticisms of this method, relatively few alternatives have been used in practice. A simple framework for comparing data underlying health care systems is presented in this article. It distinguishes measures of real resources, for example human resources, medicines and medical equipment, from measures of financial resources such as expenditures. Measures of real resources are further subdivided according to whether their factor prices are determined primarily in national or global markets. The approach is illustrated using a simple analysis of health care resource profiles for Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the USA. Comparisons based on measures of both real resources and expenditures can be more useful than conventional comparisons of expenditures alone and can lead to important insights for the future management of health care systems.

A challenge to all. A primer on inter-country differences of high-need, high-cost patients

PLOS ONE

Background Across countries, a small group of patients accounts for the majority of health care spending. These patients are more likely than other patients to experience problems with quality and safety in their care, suggesting that efforts targeting efficiency and quality among this population might have significant payoffs for health systems. Better understanding of similarities and differences in patient characteristics and health care use in different countries may ultimately inform further efforts to improve care for HNHC patients in these health systems. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study using one year of patient-level data on high-cost patients in seven high-income OECD member countries. Countries were selected based on availability of detailed information (large enough samples of claims, administrative, and survey data of high-cost patients). We studied concentration of spending among high-cost patients, characteristics of high-cost patients, and per capita spending on highcost patients. Findings Cost-concentration of the top 5% of patients varied across countries, from 41% in Japan to 60% in Canada, driven primarily by variation in the top 1% of spenders. In general, high-cost patients were more likely to be female (57.7% on average), had a significant number of multi-morbidities (up to on average 10 major diagnostic categories (ICD chapters), and had a lower socioeconomic status. Characteristics of high-cost patients varied as well: median

A Window on Geographic Variation in Health Care: Insights from EuroHOPE

Health economics, 2015

The aim of EuroHOPE was to provide new evidence on the performance of healthcare systems, using a disease-based approach, linkable patient-level data and internationally standardized methods. This paper summarizes its main results. In the seven EuroHOPE countries, the Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), stroke and hip fracture patient populations were similar with regard to age, sex and comorbidity. However, non-negligible geographic variation in mortality and resource use was found to exist. Survival rates varied to similar extents between countries and regions for AMI, stroke, hip fracture and very low birth weight. Geographic variation in length of stay differed according to type of disease. Regression analyses showed that only a small part of geographic variation could be explained by demand and supply side factors. Furthermore, the impact of these factors varied between countries. The findings show that there is room for improvement in performance at all levels of analysis and c...