IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ora/journl/v1y2015i1p338-342.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Economic Impact Of The Digestive Diseases Across The Eu Member States. The Costs Analysis In Cholecystectomy

Author

Listed:
  • Uivaroşan Diana

    (Universitatea din Oradea, Facultatea de medicina si farmacie)

  • Endres Laura
  • Tit Mirela
  • Bungau Simona

Abstract

United European Gastroenterology provide wide studies and researches on the economic impact of the digestive diseases across the countries that are members of the European Union, very useful in planning health services, in making the case for investment in research where there are clear gaps in knowledge, and in reflecting the economic differences across the EU member states in the funding available to support health services. These studies reflect that there are important disparities in the accessibility to high-quality healthcare even among the industrialized countries. Out of all the digestive diseases, the gallstone disease is one of the most common and expensive of the health problems, in industrialized countries, like those of the European Union are. In general, symptomatic or complicated gallstone disease is treated by cholecystectomy, with surgical removal of the gallbladder. The advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy has revolutionized the management of the gallstone disease, causing an increase in the rate of cholecystectomies. This study represents an analysis of the hospitalization costs involved by two surgical treatment options: laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy. The investigation of the costs was done according to the type of intervention chosen and comprised the direct costs of hospitalization, including diagnostic tests and general expenses of medical assistance, pharmaceutical and medical supplies. The results are based on the analysis of the costs of cholecystectomies in the surgical department of the Emergency County Hospital Oradea for the year 2014 (781 cases). The average cost per hospitalized patient was 1.970 RON, lower in patients with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (1.579 RON). The average cost per patient with open cholecystectomy was 55% higher than for laparoscopic surgery (2.442 RON). Even if the laparoscopic operation cost is higher because of the equipment it uses, the reduction of the number of complications and of the average length of hospitalization results in a significant reduction of the hospitalization costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Uivaroşan Diana & Endres Laura & Tit Mirela & Bungau Simona, 2015. "The Economic Impact Of The Digestive Diseases Across The Eu Member States. The Costs Analysis In Cholecystectomy," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 338-342, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ora:journl:v:1:y:2015:i:1:p:338-342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://anale.steconomiceuoradea.ro/volume/2015/n1/037.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johanna Cook & Jeff Richardson & Andrew Street, 1994. "A cost utility analysis of treatment options for gallstone disease: Methodological issues and results," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(3), pages 157-168, May.
    2. Marshall, Deborah & Clark, Edie & Hailey, David, 1994. "The impact of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Canada and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 221-230, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    2. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2013. "Incorporating Process Utility into Quality Adjusted Life Years: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 677-691, August.
    3. Karen Gerard & Katharine Johnston & Jackie Brown, 1999. "The role of a pre‐scored multi‐attribute health classification measure in validating condition‐specific health state descriptions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(8), pages 685-699, December.
    4. Diego Ossa & Andrew Briggs & Emma McIntosh & Warren Cowell & Tim Littlewood & Mark Sculpher, 2007. "Recombinant Erythropoietin for Chemotherapy-Related Anaemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 223-237, March.
    5. Kristina Secnik & Louis S. Matza & Suzi Cottrell & Eric Edgell & Dominic Tilden & Sally Mannix, 2005. "Health State Utilities for Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Based on Parent Preferences in the United Kingdom," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 56-70, January.
    6. J. Shannon Swan & William F. Lawrence & Jessica Roy, 2006. "Process Utility in Breast Biopsy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 347-359, July.
    7. Richard Abreu Lourenco & Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Rosalie Viney, 2017. "Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 347-362, March.
    8. Steven Alberts & Tiffany Yu & Robert Behrens & Lindsay Renfro & Geetika Srivastava & Gamini Soori & Shaker Dakhil & Rex Mowat & John Kuebler & George Kim & Miroslaw Mazurczak & John Hornberger, 2014. "Comparative Economics of a 12-Gene Assay for Predicting Risk of Recurrence in Stage II Colon Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1231-1243, December.
    9. Mirjam Locadia & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Frans J. Oort & Martin H. Prins & Mirjam A. G. Sprangers & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, 2004. "A Comparison of 3 Valuation Methods for Temporary Health States in Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(6), pages 625-633, November.
    10. Kurinchi Gurusamy & Edward Wilson & Andrew Burroughs & Brian Davidson, 2012. "Intra-operative vs pre-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 15-29, January.
    11. Peep F. M. Stalmeier, 2002. "Discrepancies between Chained and Classic Utilities Induced by Anchoring with Occasional Adjustments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1), pages 53-64, February.
    12. Kristina Boye & Louis Matza & Kimberly Walter & Kate Brunt & Andrew Palsgrove & Aodan Tynan, 2011. "Utilities and disutilities for attributes of injectable treatments for type 2 diabetes," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(3), pages 219-230, June.
    13. Dirksen, Carmen D. & Ament, AndreJ. H. & Go, Peter M. N., 1996. "Diffusion of six surgical endoscopic procedures in the Netherlands. Stimulating and restraining factors," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 91-104, August.
    14. Jing Shen & Sarah Hill & David Mott & Matthew Breckons & Luke Vale & Rob Pickard, 2019. "Conducting a Time Trade-Off Study Alongside a Clinical Trial: A Case Study and Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 5-20, March.
    15. Victoria Brennan & Simon Dixon, 2014. "Response to Letter to Editor: Capturing Disutility from Waiting Time," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 421-422, April.
    16. John Brazier & Mark Deverill, 1999. "A checklist for judging preference‐based measures of health related quality of life: Learning from psychometrics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 41-51, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    hospitalization costs; digestive diseases; Gallston disease; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; open cholecystectomy.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I15 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Economic Development
    • P36 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Socialist Institutions and Their Transitions - - - Consumer Economics; Health; Education and Training; Welfare, Income, Wealth, and Poverty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ora:journl:v:1:y:2015:i:1:p:338-342. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catalin ZMOLE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feoraro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.