Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy running models between outsourcing cooperation and rental cooperation conducted in Taiwan

Chih Kuang Liu, Ming Chung Ko, Shiou Sheng Chen, Wen Kai Lee, Ben-Chang Shia, Han Sun Chiang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background/Purpose: We conducted a retrospective study to compare the cost and effectiveness between two different running models for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), including the outsourcing cooperation model (OC) and the rental cooperation model (RC). Methods: Between January 1999 and December 2005, we implemented OC for the SWL, and from January 2006 to October 2011, RC was utilized. With OC, the cooperative company provided a machine and shared a variable payment with the hospital, according to treatment sessions. With RC, the cooperative company provided a machine and received a fixed rent from the hospital. We calculated the cost of each treatment session, and evaluated the break-even point to estimate the lowest number of treatment sessions to make the balance between revenue and cost every month. Effectiveness parameters, including the stone-free rate, the retreatment rate, the rate of additional procedures and complications, were evaluated. Results: Compared with OC there were significantly less treatment sessions for RC every month (42.6 ± 7.8 vs. 36.8 ± 6.5, p = 0.01). The cost of each treatment session was significantly higher for OC than for RC (751.6 ± 20.0 USD vs. 684.7 ± 16.7 USD, p = 0.01). The break-even point for the hospital was 27.5 treatment sessions/month for OC, when the hospital obtained 40% of the payment, and it could be reduced if the hospital got a greater percentage. The break-even point for the hospital was 27.3 treatment sessions/month for RC. No significant differences were noticed for the stone-free rate, the retreatment rate, the rate of additional procedures and complications. Conclusion: Our study revealed that RC had a lower cost for every treatment session, and fewer treatment sessions of SWL/month than OC. The study might provide a managerial implication for healthcare organization managers, when they face a situation of high price equipment investment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)154-158
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi
Volume114
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Outsourced Services
Lithotripsy
Taiwan
Health Care Costs
Retreatment
Therapeutics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Retrospective Studies
Organizations
Delivery of Health Care
Costs and Cost Analysis
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Cost
  • Outsourcing cooperation
  • Rental cooperation
  • SWL

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy running models between outsourcing cooperation and rental cooperation conducted in Taiwan. / Liu, Chih Kuang; Ko, Ming Chung; Chen, Shiou Sheng; Lee, Wen Kai; Shia, Ben-Chang; Chiang, Han Sun.

In: Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi, Vol. 114, No. 2, 01.02.2015, p. 154-158.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b5ac83aeb74b47e38e0debe78b39bb6f,
title = "Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy running models between outsourcing cooperation and rental cooperation conducted in Taiwan",
abstract = "Background/Purpose: We conducted a retrospective study to compare the cost and effectiveness between two different running models for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), including the outsourcing cooperation model (OC) and the rental cooperation model (RC). Methods: Between January 1999 and December 2005, we implemented OC for the SWL, and from January 2006 to October 2011, RC was utilized. With OC, the cooperative company provided a machine and shared a variable payment with the hospital, according to treatment sessions. With RC, the cooperative company provided a machine and received a fixed rent from the hospital. We calculated the cost of each treatment session, and evaluated the break-even point to estimate the lowest number of treatment sessions to make the balance between revenue and cost every month. Effectiveness parameters, including the stone-free rate, the retreatment rate, the rate of additional procedures and complications, were evaluated. Results: Compared with OC there were significantly less treatment sessions for RC every month (42.6 ± 7.8 vs. 36.8 ± 6.5, p = 0.01). The cost of each treatment session was significantly higher for OC than for RC (751.6 ± 20.0 USD vs. 684.7 ± 16.7 USD, p = 0.01). The break-even point for the hospital was 27.5 treatment sessions/month for OC, when the hospital obtained 40{\%} of the payment, and it could be reduced if the hospital got a greater percentage. The break-even point for the hospital was 27.3 treatment sessions/month for RC. No significant differences were noticed for the stone-free rate, the retreatment rate, the rate of additional procedures and complications. Conclusion: Our study revealed that RC had a lower cost for every treatment session, and fewer treatment sessions of SWL/month than OC. The study might provide a managerial implication for healthcare organization managers, when they face a situation of high price equipment investment.",
keywords = "Cost, Outsourcing cooperation, Rental cooperation, SWL",
author = "Liu, {Chih Kuang} and Ko, {Ming Chung} and Chen, {Shiou Sheng} and Lee, {Wen Kai} and Ben-Chang Shia and Chiang, {Han Sun}",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jfma.2012.09.012",
language = "English",
volume = "114",
pages = "154--158",
journal = "Journal of the Formosan Medical Association",
issn = "0929-6646",
publisher = "Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy running models between outsourcing cooperation and rental cooperation conducted in Taiwan

AU - Liu, Chih Kuang

AU - Ko, Ming Chung

AU - Chen, Shiou Sheng

AU - Lee, Wen Kai

AU - Shia, Ben-Chang

AU - Chiang, Han Sun

PY - 2015/2/1

Y1 - 2015/2/1

N2 - Background/Purpose: We conducted a retrospective study to compare the cost and effectiveness between two different running models for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), including the outsourcing cooperation model (OC) and the rental cooperation model (RC). Methods: Between January 1999 and December 2005, we implemented OC for the SWL, and from January 2006 to October 2011, RC was utilized. With OC, the cooperative company provided a machine and shared a variable payment with the hospital, according to treatment sessions. With RC, the cooperative company provided a machine and received a fixed rent from the hospital. We calculated the cost of each treatment session, and evaluated the break-even point to estimate the lowest number of treatment sessions to make the balance between revenue and cost every month. Effectiveness parameters, including the stone-free rate, the retreatment rate, the rate of additional procedures and complications, were evaluated. Results: Compared with OC there were significantly less treatment sessions for RC every month (42.6 ± 7.8 vs. 36.8 ± 6.5, p = 0.01). The cost of each treatment session was significantly higher for OC than for RC (751.6 ± 20.0 USD vs. 684.7 ± 16.7 USD, p = 0.01). The break-even point for the hospital was 27.5 treatment sessions/month for OC, when the hospital obtained 40% of the payment, and it could be reduced if the hospital got a greater percentage. The break-even point for the hospital was 27.3 treatment sessions/month for RC. No significant differences were noticed for the stone-free rate, the retreatment rate, the rate of additional procedures and complications. Conclusion: Our study revealed that RC had a lower cost for every treatment session, and fewer treatment sessions of SWL/month than OC. The study might provide a managerial implication for healthcare organization managers, when they face a situation of high price equipment investment.

AB - Background/Purpose: We conducted a retrospective study to compare the cost and effectiveness between two different running models for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), including the outsourcing cooperation model (OC) and the rental cooperation model (RC). Methods: Between January 1999 and December 2005, we implemented OC for the SWL, and from January 2006 to October 2011, RC was utilized. With OC, the cooperative company provided a machine and shared a variable payment with the hospital, according to treatment sessions. With RC, the cooperative company provided a machine and received a fixed rent from the hospital. We calculated the cost of each treatment session, and evaluated the break-even point to estimate the lowest number of treatment sessions to make the balance between revenue and cost every month. Effectiveness parameters, including the stone-free rate, the retreatment rate, the rate of additional procedures and complications, were evaluated. Results: Compared with OC there were significantly less treatment sessions for RC every month (42.6 ± 7.8 vs. 36.8 ± 6.5, p = 0.01). The cost of each treatment session was significantly higher for OC than for RC (751.6 ± 20.0 USD vs. 684.7 ± 16.7 USD, p = 0.01). The break-even point for the hospital was 27.5 treatment sessions/month for OC, when the hospital obtained 40% of the payment, and it could be reduced if the hospital got a greater percentage. The break-even point for the hospital was 27.3 treatment sessions/month for RC. No significant differences were noticed for the stone-free rate, the retreatment rate, the rate of additional procedures and complications. Conclusion: Our study revealed that RC had a lower cost for every treatment session, and fewer treatment sessions of SWL/month than OC. The study might provide a managerial implication for healthcare organization managers, when they face a situation of high price equipment investment.

KW - Cost

KW - Outsourcing cooperation

KW - Rental cooperation

KW - SWL

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922811322&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922811322&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jfma.2012.09.012

DO - 10.1016/j.jfma.2012.09.012

M3 - Article

VL - 114

SP - 154

EP - 158

JO - Journal of the Formosan Medical Association

JF - Journal of the Formosan Medical Association

SN - 0929-6646

IS - 2

ER -