2012European Journal of Cancer CareRequires access

The costs of centralisation: a systematic review of the economic impact of the centralisation of cancer services

KM Ke, William Hollingworth, Andy Ness

Open publisher page 39 citations

Abstract

While evidence suggests that within specific cancer sites centralisation of services improves outcomes and quality of care, the economic impact of centralisation is unclear. This systematic review identified 19 studies that have investigated whether or not the centralisation of cancer services results in economies of scale, or is cost-effective, or increases the costs of accessing care for patients and their carers. Evidence from 13 studies suggests that increasing surgeon volumes are associated with cost reductions, although one study suggested that this relationship is U-shaped and the evidence is not consistent for hospital volumes and costs. Only one study demonstrated that centralisation was cost-effective with an incremental cost utility ratio of $5029 (€3616) per quality-adjusted life year gained. Consistent evidence from four studies suggested that centralised services increase the costs of accessing care for patients and their carers. Current evidence on the economic impact of centralisation of cancer services is limited and of poor quality. Therefore, it remains unclear whether centralisation results in economies of scale and is cost-effective. Future research should be based on a clear definition of the different components of centralisation in order to determine which aspects of centralisation are efficient and for which cancer subgroups.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

While evidence suggests that within specific cancer sites centralisation of services improves outcomes and quality of care, the economic impact of centralisation is unclear. This systematic review identified 19 studies that have investigated whether or not the centralisation of cancer services results in economies of scale, or is cost-effective, or increases the costs of accessing care for patients and their carers. Evidence from 13 studies suggests that increasing surgeon volumes are associated with cost reductions, although one study suggested that this relationship is U-shaped and the evidence is not consistent for hospital volumes and costs. Only one study demonstrated that centralisation was cost-effective with an incremental cost utility ratio of $5029 (€3616) per quality-adjusted life year gained. Consistent evidence from four studies suggested that centralised services increase the costs of accessing care for patients and their carers. Current evidence on the economic impact of centralisation of cancer services is limited and of poor quality. Therefore, it remains unclear whether centralisation results in economies of scale and is cost-effective. Future research should be based on a clear definition of the different components of centralisation in order to determine which aspects of centralisation are efficient and for which cancer subgroups.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 39 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

While evidence suggests that within specific cancer sites centralisation of services improves outcomes and quality of care, the economic impact of centralisation is unclear. This systematic review identified 19 studies that have investigated whether or not the centralisation of cancer services results in economies of scale, or is cost-effective, or increases the costs of accessing care for patients and their carers. Evidence from 13 studies suggests that increasing surgeon volumes are associated with cost reductions, although one study suggested that this relationship is U-shaped and the evidence is not consistent for hospital volumes and costs. Only one study demonstrated that centralisation was cost-effective with an incremental cost utility ratio of $5029 (€3616) per quality-adjusted life year gained. Consistent evidence from four studies suggested that centralised services increase the costs of accessing care for patients and their carers. Current evidence on the economic impact of centralisation of cancer services is limited and of poor quality. Therefore, it remains unclear whether centralisation results in economies of scale and is cost-effective. Future research should be based on a clear definition of the different components of centralisation in order to determine which aspects of centralisation are efficient and for which cancer subgroups.

Key concepts: Centralisation, Medicine, Scale (ratio), Health economics, Public economics, Public health, Economics, Nursing

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The costs of centralisation: a systematic review of the economic impact of the centralisation of cancer services — Research Paper | ScholarLens