Abstract
Ojectives
Since health care budgets are limited and must be allocated efficiently, there is an economic pressure to reduce the costs of health care interventions. This study aims to investigate the cost of testing within a Clinical Chemistry laboratory.
Methods
This study was conducted in the Clinical Chemistry laboratory of the University Hospital UZ Brussel, Belgium, in which 156 tests were included and an average cost per test was calculated for the year 2018. Activity-based costing (ABC) was applied, using a top-down perspective. Costs were first allocated to different activity centers and subsequently to different tests. Number of tests, parameters, analyzers and time estimates were used as activity cost drivers.
Results
The blood glucose test on the point-of-care testing (POCT) analyzer Accu Chek Inform II had the lowest unit cost (€0.92). The determination of methanol, ethanol and isopropanol on the GC-FID (7820A) is the test with the highest unit cost (€129.42). In terms of average cost per test per activity center, core laboratory (€3.37) scored lowest, followed consecutively by POCT (€3.49), diabetes (€22.09), toxicology (€31.52), metabolic disorder (€41.53) and cystic fibrosis (€86.02). The cost per test was mainly determined by staff (57%), costs of support services (23%) and reagents (14%).
Conclusions
High-volume and automated tests have lower unit costs, as is the case with the core laboratory. ABC provides the ability to identify high average cost tests that can benefit from optimizations, such as focusing on automation or outsourcing low-volume tests that can benefit from economies of scale.
Acknowledgments
This study was part of a thesis in Master of Health Care Management and Policy at the KU Leuven University. We thank the management of UZ Brussel for allowing this study to be carried out and all those involved at UZ Brussel who participated in this study.
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Informed consent: Not applicable.
Ethical approval: Not applicable.
References
1. Barletta, G, Zaninotto, M, Faggian, D, Plebani, M. Shop for quality or quantity? Volumes and costs in clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:295–301. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2012-0415.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Plebani, M, Lippi, G. Is laboratory medicine a dying profession? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. Clin Biochem 2010;43:939–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2010.05.015.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Su, BG, Chen, SF, Yeh, SH, Shih, PW, Lin, CC. Cost evaluation of clinical laboratory in Taiwan’s National Health System by using activity-based costing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1753–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0193.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Mouseli, A, Barouni, M, Amiresmaili, M, Mirab Samiee, S, Vali, L. Cost-price estimation of clinical laboratory services based on activity-based costing: a case study from a developing country. Electron Phys 2017;9:4077–83. https://doi.org/10.19082/4077.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
5. Adane, K, Abiy, Z, Desta, K. The revenue generated from clinical chemistry and hematology laboratory services as determined using activity-based costing (ABC) model. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2015;13:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-015-0047-7.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
6. Cooper, R, Kaplan, R. Activity-based systems: measuring the costs of resource usage. Account Horiz 1992;6:1–13.Search in Google Scholar
7. Kaplan, RS, Anderson, SR. Time-driven activity-based costing. Harv Bus Rev 2003;82:131–8.10.2139/ssrn.485443Search in Google Scholar
8. Kaplan, RS, Porter, ME. How to solve the cost crisis in health care understanding the value of health care. Harv Bus Rev 2011;89:47–64.Search in Google Scholar
9. Keel, G, Savage, C, Rafiq, M, Mazzocato, P. Time-driven activity-based costing in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Health Pol 2017;121:755–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.04.013.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Kaplan, AL, Agarwal, N, Setlur, NP, Tan, HJ, Niedzwiecki, D, McLaughlin, N, et al.. Measuring the cost of care in benign prostatic hyperplasia using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC). Healthcare 2015;3:43–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2014.09.007.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. DiGioia, AM, Greenhouse, PK, Giarrusso, ML, Kress, JM. Determining the true cost to deliver total hip and knee arthroplasty over the full cycle of care: preparing for bundling and reference-based pricing. J Arthroplasty 2016;31:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.07.013.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Plebani, M. Quality and future of clinical laboratories: the Vico’s whole cyclical theory of the recurring cycles. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:901–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2018-0009.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Plebani, M. Clinical laboratory: bigger is not always better. Diagnosis 2018;5:41–6. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2018-0019.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
