Blood services costs and charges
E. Wallace
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1537-2995.2001.41040437.x
2001-04-01
Transfusion
Abstract:Volume 41, April 2001 TRANSFUSION 437 www.transfusion.org When characterizing hospital blood services costs or assessing their efficiency, investigators and administrators employ different measures of inputs and outputs. Medical and scientific investigators typically prefer physical measures—primarily, the number of units of blood components transfused per patient.1-3 Administrators, on the other hand, prefer the broader economic measures—costs and charges. Among investigators, preference for units of transfused components per patient as a measure of blood service activity is the result of several factors. Procurement, testing, and processing of units of blood components constitute the principal input activities of hospital blood services that culminate in transfusion, the main output activity and the one most familiar to investigators. Units of transfused components are a measure that is readily available and directly obtainable from blood service and patient records and that is easily identified with patients, diagnoses, and procedures. A blood service that effectively treats hospital patients with minimal units of transfused blood components is viewed by investigators as safe and efficient. Costs and charges, while they are broader measures of blood service activity, are viewed by most investigators as remote, abstract, and arcane—measures that are employed mainly by accountants and administrators. Costs are not readily available to investigators and, when available, are usually presented as total costs of each of the various inputs—components, labor, supplies, facilities, and other services—required to conduct blood service activities. Only in the most general, aggregate way can such total blood service costs be associated with the complex of service outputs. When total costs are assigned to specific patients, diagnoses, and procedures, averaging methods must be employed, and the results of those calculations are always arbitrary. In the current era of managed care, constrained reimbursement, and cost containment, when the intent of an analysis is to assess the overall efficiency of hospital blood service, the ratio of total costs to total charges is the preferred measure. However, if the intent is more limited—for example, to characterize certain specific blood service activities or to measure efficiency in relation to a specific set of transfusion activities—a combination of economic and physical input and output measures, such as the ratio of blood service costs per patient per diagnosis or procedure, is sometimes employed. As previously stated, the method of averaging and assigning costs per patient to specific diagnoses or procedures will be arbitrary. Such arbitrary measures can be informative in characterizing the service, but they are insufficient in assessing specific blood service efficiency. Lacking are reference costs per patient diagnosis or procedure to serve as standards of efficient performance. To serve as criteria, reference costs must be determined by the same method as that used to measure the incurred costs. And if the intent of the analysis is to determine underlying sources of efficiency or inefficiency, both reference and incurred costs must be disaggregated into the constituent elements of components, services, and prices, and then compared. This latter step is seldom attempted, because comparative analysis of blood service costs by diagnosis or procedure is not an easy undertaking, and the results are difficult to interpret and therefore of limited value. This issue of TRANSFUSION contains two articles on blood service costs or charges. Jeffries et al.4 provide a valuable set of figures and tables estimating the median hospital blood service costs per patient per diagnosis-related group (DRG) in 1995 for 60 university hospital members of the University HealthSystems Consortium. Overall, the authors estimated the 1995 transfusion costs in the member hospitals to have been less than 1 percent of total hospital costs for medical DRGs and 1 percent for surgical DRGs. One percent of total hospital costs, however, still represents a very substantial sum. Table 1 of their article contains the first comprehensive listing of the 25 DRGs with the highest blood service usage since the studies by Friedman et al.5 in the early 1980s. Unlike those authors, who used the mean number of units of RBCs transfused per patient as a ranking statistic, Jeffries et al. ranked the DRGs by using a form of standardized median cost per discharged patient per DRG, based on the revenue codes of the Health Care Financing Administration, adjusted for each hospital center’s overall average ratio of costs to charges and geographic wage rate differences. Correspondence between the two ranking statistics is unknown, as the authors were unable to test the correlation between average numbers of RBC units transfused and median (or mean) costs per DRG. Blood services costs and charges