ArticleHealth economics review2025
Using microdata as a basis for long term projections of hospital care spending: the added value of more detailed information.
Article in Health economics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComponent-based projections are commonly used to predict future growth in healthcare spending. The current study aimed to compare pure component-based projections to projections using microlevel data to investigate their added value.
methodsThe microdata was used to find disease-specific time trends in the number of patients that use hospital care and in annual per patient hospital spending (APHS). Total expenditure projections were then based on APHS and hospital use per disease category combined with demographic projections. As comparator, we used projections with a composite growth term derived from total spending time trends. Furthermore, extensive uncertainty analyses were performed.
resultsTime -trends were present both in hospital care usage and in annual per patient hospital spending (APHS) for most disease groups. What is known as the "residual growth" category in many projections of healthcare spending can be split into these two time- trends, offering more insight into their sources. The advantage of explicit modeling as done in this paper is that trends in usage and per patient spending can be separated. The use of microdata allowed further refinement of component-based models for projections in healthcare spending and a more elaborate analysis of uncertainty surrounding these projections.
conclusionsWe found time trends in both hospital care usage and APHS in most disease groups. Incorporating these trends into cost projections for various disease groups results in more conservative estimates of future hospital spending compared to merely using demographic projections of per capita costs and adjusting them for observed historical growth. The use of microdata for component-based modelling has benefits but also downsides. A positive side of using microlevel data is that individuals could be followed over multiple years, a downside was the vast amount of computing power and time needed to perform these extensive analyses. Our results could support policy makers to adjust for hospital (staffing) capacity not purely on demographic changes but also based on observed trends in the use of specific types of hospital care, per disease.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.