REPORT FROM THE FIRST MULTIDISCIPLINARY COST OF BLOOD CONSENSUS (COBCON) WORKING GROUP TO ESTABLISH STANDARD METHODOLOGY
Author(s)
Broder M1, for the COBCON Working Group (SABM)2, Aledort LM3, Busch MP4, Custer B4, Fergusson DA5, Goodnough LT6, Hendler RS7, Hofmann A8, Klein HG9, Louie JE10, Page PL11, Sazama K12, Shander A13, Shulman IA14, Spence RK15, Sullivan MT16, Thurer RL17
1Zynx Health, A Cerner Company, Beverly Hills, CA, USA; 2Society for the Advancement of Blood Management, Englewood, NJ, USA; 3Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 4The Pacific/Blood Systems, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA; 5University of Ottawa Centre for Transfusion Research, Ottowa, ON, Canada; 6Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA; 7Tenet Health Systems, Dallas, TX, USA; 8SABM-Austria, Vienna, Austria; 9Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA; 10New York Blood Center, New York, NY, USA; 11American Red Cross, Washington, D.C., USA; 12University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA; 13Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, Englewood, NJ, USA; 14Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angels, CA, USA; 15St. Agnes Heatlh Care; 16National Blood Data Resource Center, Baltimore, MD, USA; 17Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
OBJECTIVE: To formulate a more comprehensive and generalizable model than is currently available that fully accounts for costs associated with blood transfusions. METHODS: A consensus panel of experts in transfusion medicine was organized by the Society for the Advancement of Blood Management (SABM), representing clinical, blood banking, and academic interests. An iterative process was used to refine data from worksheets that had been distributed, collected, and summarized prior to the conference. RESULTS: A detailed process-flow model was constructed, encompassing both direct and indirect cost elements. Major steps and critical interdependencies were identified, including donor recruitment/qualification, blood collection, blood component processing, laboratory testing, unit tracking and labeling, blood destruction, donor notification and tracking, blood center/collection facility inventory, storage, and transport, transfusion service inventory and storage, pretransfusion preparation, transfusion administration and follow-up, and long-term outcomes tracking. Within these major steps, 248 cost elements were itemized. The relative importance and degree of difficulty associated with collecting cost data for each element were rated. Panelists rated personnel, screening for infectious agents, information systems, laboratory evaluations, transfusion reaction management, and equipment as the most important elements to capture. Limitations in current process-flow models were recognized, with deficiencies in accounting for both direct and indirect costs. Work is in progress to convert the present model into one that employs activity-based costing (ABC) which will correct the underestimates of blood costs provided in existing literature. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for the cost of blood is an enormously complex undertaking and a standard, widely applicable methodology is needed. As presented, this process-flow diagram and comprehensive set of cost elements should be of interest to providers, payers, and society. When completed, the ABC model will be a more precise means to compare the cost of blood to that of transfusion alternatives or for evaluating safety-related improvements to blood administration technology.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2004-05, ISPOR 2004, Arlington, VA, USA
Value in Health, Vol. 7, No. 3 (May/June 2004)
Code
PBR6
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost/Cost of Illness/Resource Use Studies
Disease
Multiple Diseases
Explore Related HEOR by Topic