Related Experiment Videos
Financial justification of alternate site testing
R P De Cresce1, D L Phillips, P J Howanitz
1Rush-Presbyterian St Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
|October 1, 1995
Summary
To make alternate-site testing (AST) cost-effective, variable costs must decrease. A standardized cost-per-test analysis is crucial for accurate comparisons between central laboratory testing and AST.
Area of Science:
- Healthcare Economics
- Clinical Laboratory Science
Background:
- Clinical laboratory testing traditionally has higher fixed costs and lower variable costs compared to alternate-site testing (AST).
- The cost-effectiveness of AST is contingent upon reducing its variable costs.
- Accurate cost analysis is essential for evaluating different healthcare testing models.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare four different models for accounting for the costs associated with clinical laboratory testing and AST.
- To identify common errors in cost-per-test analyses for AST.
- To provide recommendations for accurate cost-per-test methodologies.
Main Methods:
- Comparison of four distinct cost-accounting models.
- Analysis of indirect cost inclusion in cost-per-test calculations for AST.
- Evaluation of cost categories for central laboratory testing versus AST.
Main Results:
- A common mistake in AST cost analysis is omitting indirect costs, leading to inaccurate findings.
- Identical cost categories should be employed for both central laboratory and AST cost-per-test analyses.
- Cost-per-test data alone are insufficient to fully represent institutional costs or savings.
Conclusions:
- Reducing variable costs is key to improving the cost-effectiveness of alternate-site testing.
- Standardized and comprehensive cost-per-test analyses, including indirect costs, are necessary for valid comparisons.
- Institutional cost implications extend beyond simple cost-per-test metrics.