Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Using top-down and bottom-up costing approaches...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Using top-down and bottom-up costing approaches in LMICs: The case for using both to assess the incremental costs of new technologies at scale

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Using top-down and bottom-up costing approaches in LMICs: The case for using both to assess the incremental costs of new technologies at scale. / Cunnama, Lucy; Sinanovic, Edina; Ramma, Lebogang et al.
In: Health Economics, Vol. 25, No. Supp 1, 01.02.2016, p. 53-66.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Cunnama, L, Sinanovic, E, Ramma, L, Foster, N, Berrie, L, Stevens, W, Molapo, S, Marokane, P, McCarthy, K & Churchyard, G 2016, 'Using top-down and bottom-up costing approaches in LMICs: The case for using both to assess the incremental costs of new technologies at scale', Health Economics, vol. 25, no. Supp 1, pp. 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3295

APA

Cunnama, L., Sinanovic, E., Ramma, L., Foster, N., Berrie, L., Stevens, W., Molapo, S., Marokane, P., McCarthy, K., & Churchyard, G. (2016). Using top-down and bottom-up costing approaches in LMICs: The case for using both to assess the incremental costs of new technologies at scale. Health Economics, 25(Supp 1), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3295

Vancouver

Cunnama L, Sinanovic E, Ramma L, Foster N, Berrie L, Stevens W et al. Using top-down and bottom-up costing approaches in LMICs: The case for using both to assess the incremental costs of new technologies at scale. Health Economics. 2016 Feb 1;25(Supp 1):53-66. doi: 10.1002/hec.3295

Author

Cunnama, Lucy ; Sinanovic, Edina ; Ramma, Lebogang et al. / Using top-down and bottom-up costing approaches in LMICs : The case for using both to assess the incremental costs of new technologies at scale. In: Health Economics. 2016 ; Vol. 25, No. Supp 1. pp. 53-66.

Bibtex

@article{4e932efafda7442d9e9db75b62a1bda6,
title = "Using top-down and bottom-up costing approaches in LMICs: The case for using both to assess the incremental costs of new technologies at scale",
abstract = "PurposeEstimating the incremental costs of scaling‐up novel technologies in low‐income and middle‐income countries is a methodologically challenging and substantial empirical undertaking, in the absence of routine cost data collection. We demonstrate a best practice pragmatic approach to estimate the incremental costs of new technologies in low‐income and middle‐income countries, using the example of costing the scale‐up of Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB)/resistance to riframpicin (RIF) in South Africa.Materials and methodsWe estimate costs, by applying two distinct approaches of bottom‐up and top‐down costing, together with an assessment of processes and capacity.ResultsThe unit costs measured using the different methods of bottom‐up and top‐down costing, respectively, are $US16.9 and $US33.5 for Xpert MTB/RIF, and $US6.3 and $US8.5 for microscopy. The incremental cost of Xpert MTB/RIF is estimated to be between $US14.7 and $US17.7. While the average cost of Xpert MTB/RIF was higher than previous studies using standard methods, the incremental cost of Xpert MTB/RIF was found to be lower.ConclusionCosts estimates are highly dependent on the method used, so an approach, which clearly identifies resource‐use data collected from a bottom‐up or top‐down perspective, together with capacity measurement, is recommended as a pragmatic approach to capture true incremental cost where routine cost data are scarce.",
author = "Lucy Cunnama and Edina Sinanovic and Lebogang Ramma and Nicola Foster and Leigh Berrie and Wendy Stevens and Sebaka Molapo and Puleng Marokane and Kerrigan McCarthy and Gavin Churchyard",
year = "2016",
month = feb,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/hec.3295",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "53--66",
journal = "Health Economics",
issn = "1057-9230",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "Supp 1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using top-down and bottom-up costing approaches in LMICs

T2 - The case for using both to assess the incremental costs of new technologies at scale

AU - Cunnama, Lucy

AU - Sinanovic, Edina

AU - Ramma, Lebogang

AU - Foster, Nicola

AU - Berrie, Leigh

AU - Stevens, Wendy

AU - Molapo, Sebaka

AU - Marokane, Puleng

AU - McCarthy, Kerrigan

AU - Churchyard, Gavin

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - PurposeEstimating the incremental costs of scaling‐up novel technologies in low‐income and middle‐income countries is a methodologically challenging and substantial empirical undertaking, in the absence of routine cost data collection. We demonstrate a best practice pragmatic approach to estimate the incremental costs of new technologies in low‐income and middle‐income countries, using the example of costing the scale‐up of Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB)/resistance to riframpicin (RIF) in South Africa.Materials and methodsWe estimate costs, by applying two distinct approaches of bottom‐up and top‐down costing, together with an assessment of processes and capacity.ResultsThe unit costs measured using the different methods of bottom‐up and top‐down costing, respectively, are $US16.9 and $US33.5 for Xpert MTB/RIF, and $US6.3 and $US8.5 for microscopy. The incremental cost of Xpert MTB/RIF is estimated to be between $US14.7 and $US17.7. While the average cost of Xpert MTB/RIF was higher than previous studies using standard methods, the incremental cost of Xpert MTB/RIF was found to be lower.ConclusionCosts estimates are highly dependent on the method used, so an approach, which clearly identifies resource‐use data collected from a bottom‐up or top‐down perspective, together with capacity measurement, is recommended as a pragmatic approach to capture true incremental cost where routine cost data are scarce.

AB - PurposeEstimating the incremental costs of scaling‐up novel technologies in low‐income and middle‐income countries is a methodologically challenging and substantial empirical undertaking, in the absence of routine cost data collection. We demonstrate a best practice pragmatic approach to estimate the incremental costs of new technologies in low‐income and middle‐income countries, using the example of costing the scale‐up of Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB)/resistance to riframpicin (RIF) in South Africa.Materials and methodsWe estimate costs, by applying two distinct approaches of bottom‐up and top‐down costing, together with an assessment of processes and capacity.ResultsThe unit costs measured using the different methods of bottom‐up and top‐down costing, respectively, are $US16.9 and $US33.5 for Xpert MTB/RIF, and $US6.3 and $US8.5 for microscopy. The incremental cost of Xpert MTB/RIF is estimated to be between $US14.7 and $US17.7. While the average cost of Xpert MTB/RIF was higher than previous studies using standard methods, the incremental cost of Xpert MTB/RIF was found to be lower.ConclusionCosts estimates are highly dependent on the method used, so an approach, which clearly identifies resource‐use data collected from a bottom‐up or top‐down perspective, together with capacity measurement, is recommended as a pragmatic approach to capture true incremental cost where routine cost data are scarce.

U2 - 10.1002/hec.3295

DO - 10.1002/hec.3295

M3 - Journal article

VL - 25

SP - 53

EP - 66

JO - Health Economics

JF - Health Economics

SN - 1057-9230

IS - Supp 1

ER -