Open AccessHigh resource utilization in liver transplantation—how strongly differ costs between the care sectors and what are the main cost drivers?: a retrospective study
Author(s) -
Harries Lena,
Schrem Harald,
Stahmeyer Jona T.,
Krauth Christian,
Amelung Volker E.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
transplant international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.998
H-Index - 82
eISSN - 1432-2277
pISSN - 0934-0874
DOI - 10.1111/tri.12950
Subject(s) - medicine , transplantation , inpatient care , health care , observational study , liver transplantation , emergency medicine , resource use , retrospective cohort study , total cost , intensive care medicine , surgery , environmental resource management , business , accounting , environmental science , economics , economic growth
Summary To control treatment pathways of transplant patients across healthcare sectors, a profound knowledge of the underlying cost structure is necessary. The aim of this study was to analyze the resource utilization of patients undergoing liver transplantation. Data on resource utilization for 182 liver‐transplanted patients was investigated retrospectively. The observational period started with the entry on the waiting list and ended up to 3 years after transplantation. Median treatment cost was 144 424€. During waiting time, median costs amounted to 9466€; 72% of costs were attributed to inpatient care, 3% to outpatient care, and 26% to pharmaceuticals. During the first year after transplantation, median costs of 105 566€ were calculated; 83% were allocated for inpatient and 1% outpatient care, 14% for drugs, and 1% for rehabilitative care. During follow‐up after the first year of transplantation, median costs amounted to 20 115€; 75% of these were caused by pharmaceuticals, 21% by inpatient, 4% by outpatient, and <1% by rehabilitative services. Subgroup analyses (e.g., for lab MELD scores) were done. Costs incurred by inpatient care and pharmaceuticals are the dominating cost factors. These findings encourage a debate on challenges and improvements for cost‐efficient clinical management between different healthcare sectors.