Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:51:15.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marginal cost of operating a positron emission tomography center in a regulatory environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2005

Anderson Chuck ,
Philip Jacobs ,
J. Wayne Logus ,
Donald St. Hilaire ,
Chester Chmielowiec  and
Alexander J. B. McEwan
Anderson Chuck
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Philip Jacobs
Affiliation:
University of Alberta and Institute of Health Economics
J. Wayne Logus
Affiliation:
Cross Cancer Institute
Donald St. Hilaire
Affiliation:
Cross Cancer Institute
Chester Chmielowiec
Affiliation:
University of Alberta and Cross Cancer Institute
Alexander J. B. McEwan
Affiliation:
University of Alberta and Cross Cancer Institute
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Cost studies of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging are important for resource and operational planning; the most relevant cost analysis in this regard is the marginal cost. Operating within a regulatory environment can add considerably to the costs of providing PET services. Previously published research has not examined the marginal cost structure of PET nor have they described the implications of regulatory compliance to operational costs. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive cost estimation of PET imaging with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) to better identify the fixed and variable cost components, the marginal cost structure, and the added costs of satisfying regulatory requirements.

Methods: Financial data on capital and operating expenses were collected for the PET center at the Cross Cancer Institute in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Results: The total per-service cost for clinical operations ranged between $7,869 (400 annual scans) and $1,231 (3,200 annual scans). The marginal cost for the center remained steady as volume increased up to the throughput capacity.

Conclusions: Results indicate that economies from increased volumes did not arise. Regulatory requirements added significant costs to operating an 18F-FDG-PET center.

Keywords

Positron emission tomographyNuclear imagingCosts
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , October 2005 , pp. 442 - 451
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berger M, Gould MK, Barnett PG. 2003 The cost of positron emission tomography in six United States veterans affairs hospitals and two academic health centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 181: 359– 365.Google Scholar
Conti PS, Keppler JS, Halls JM. 1994 Positron emission tomography: A financial and operational analysis. Am J Roentgenol. 162: 1279– 1286.Google Scholar
Eitzman D, Al-Aouar Z, Kanter HL, et al. 1992 Clinical outcome of patients with advanced coronary artery disease after viable studies with positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 20: 559– 565.Google Scholar
Evens RG, Seigel BA, Welch MJ. 1983 Ter-pogassian MM. Cost analyses of positron emission tomography for clinical use. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 141: 1073– 1076.Google Scholar
Evens RG, Seigel BA, Welch MJ, Ter-pogassian M. 1983 Cost analyses of positron emission tomography for clinical use. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 141: 1073– 076.Google Scholar
Frick MP, Gupta NC, Sunderland JJ, et al. 1992 Considerations in setting up a positron emission tomography center. Semin Nucl Med. 22: 182– 188.Google Scholar
Gardner SF, Green JA, Bednarczyk EM, et al. 1992 Principles and clinical applications of positron emission tomography. Am J Hosp Pharm. 49: 1499– 1506.Google Scholar
Jacobs P, Rapaport J. 2002 The economics of health and medical care. 5th ed. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publishers, Inc.;
Keppler JS, Conti PS. 2001 A cost analysis of positron emission tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 177: 31– 40.Google Scholar
Kwee SA, Coel MN, Lim J, Ko JP. 2005 Prostate cancer localization with 18fluorine fluorocholine positron emission tomography. J Urol. 173: 252– 255.Google Scholar
Lassen U. 2001. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG): A survey of the literature with regard to evidence for clinical use in oncology, cardiology and neurology. Alberta, Canada: Centre for Evaluation and Medical Technology Assessment;
Liberati A, Sheldon T, Banta D. 1997 Eur-assess project subgroup report on methodology: Methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 13: 186– 219.Google Scholar
Ryu SY, Kim MH, Choi SC, et al. 2003 Detection of early recurrence with 18F-FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med. 44: 347– 352.Google Scholar
Strauss LG, Conti PS. 1991 The application of PET in clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 32: 623– 648.Google Scholar
Wagner HN, Conti PS. 1991 Advances in medical imaging for cancer diagnosis and treatment. Cancer. 67: 1121– 1128.Google Scholar