Standardising workforce cost estimates across Australian jurisdictions: genomic testing as a use case
Dylan A. Mordaunt
A B C D *
A
B
C
D
Abstract
Labour costs are a key driver of healthcare costs and a key component of economic evaluations in healthcare. We undertook the current study to collect information about workforce costs related to clinical genomic testing in Australia, identifying key components of pay scales and contracts, and incorporating these into a matrix to enable modelling of disaggregated costs.
We undertook a microcosting study of health workforce labour costs in Australia, from a health services perspective. We mapped the genomic testing processes, identifying the relevant workforce. Data was collected on the identified workforce from publicly available pay scales. Estimates were used to model the total cost from a public health services employer perspective, undertaking deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
We identified significant variability in the way in which pay scales and related conditions are both structured and the levels between jurisdictions. The total costs (2023–2024 Australian dollars) ranged from 160,794 (113,848–233,350) for administrative staff to 703,206 (548,011–923,661) for pathology staff (full-time equivalent). Deterministic sensitivity analysis identified that the base salary accounts for the greatest source of uncertainty, from 24.8% (20.0–32.9%) for laboratory technicians to 53.6% (52.8–54.4%) for medical scientists.
Variations in remuneration levels and conditions between Australian jurisdictions account for considerable variation in the estimated cost of labour and may contribute significantly to the uncertainty of economic assessments of genomic testing and other labour-intensive health technologies. We outline an approach to standardise the collection and estimation of uncertainty for Australian health workforce costs and provide current estimates for labour costs.
Keywords: economic evaluation, enterprise bargaining agreements, health economics, health policy, health workforce, labour costs, microcosting.
References
1 Hartman M, Martin AB, Benson J, Catlin A, National Health Expenditure Accounts Team.. National Health Care Spending In 2018: Growth Driven By Accelerations In Medicare and Private Insurance Spending. Health Aff (Millwood) 2020; 39(1): 8-17.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
2 Parry T, Sherman B. Workforce Health--The Transition From Cost to Outcomes to Business Performance. Benefits Q 2015; 31(1): 32-8.
| Google Scholar | PubMed |
5 Claassen CW, Lindsay B, Riedel DJ, Kafunda I, Mwango L, Hachaambwa L, et al. Economic evaluations of differentiated service delivery should include savings and ancillary benefits, not only health system costs. AIDS 2021; 35(13): 2234-5.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
6 Kuhlmann E, Denis J-L, Côté N, Lotta G, Neri S. Comparing Health Workforce Policy during a Major Global Health Crisis: A Critical Conceptual Debate and International Empirical Investigation. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023; 20(6): 5035.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
7 Kaplan RS, Gallani S. Variance analysis: New insights from health care applications. Issues Account Educ 2022; 37(2): 27-36.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
8 Hoomans T, Severens JL. Economic evaluation of implementation strategies in health care. Implement Sci 2014; 9(1): 168.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
9 Bhattarai N, McMeekin P, Price C, Vale L. Economic evaluations on centralisation of specialised healthcare services: a systematic review of methods. BMJ Open 2016; 6(5): e011214.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
10 Mordaunt DA, Stark Z, Santos Gonzalez F, Dalziel K, Goranitis I. Development of a microcosting protocol to determine the economic cost of diagnostic genomic testing for rare diseases in Australia. BMJ Open 2023; 13(11): e069441.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
11 Mordaunt DA, Gonzalez FS, Lunke S, Eggers S, Sadedin S, Chong B, et al. The cost of proband and trio exome and genome analysis in rare disease: A micro-costing study. Genet Med 2023; 26(4): 101058.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
12 Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force. Value Health 2022; 25(1): 10-31.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
13 Ruger JP, Reiff M. A Checklist for the Conduct, Reporting, and Appraisal of Microcosting Studies in Health Care: Protocol Development. JMIR Res Protoc 2016; 5(4): e195.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
14 Australia Services, Australian Government. Medicare Services: Monthly and Quarterly Statistical Reports (Table 2.2: Medicare - Enrolment Data - Quarterly Enrolments as at December 31, 2023; Available at http://medicarestatistics.humanservices.gov.au/statistics/do.jsp?_PROGRAM=/statistics/std_standard_report&start_dt=0&ptype=quarter&end_dt=202312&VAR=Services&RPT_FMT=table 2.2 [cited 28 March 2023].
15 Australian Taxation Office. Key Superannuation Rates and Thresholds. 2024. Available at https://www.ato.gov.au/tax-rates-and-codes/key-superannuation-rates-and-thresholds
16 Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res 2011; 12: 2825-30.
| Google Scholar |
18 McKinney W. pandas: a foundational Python library for data analysis and statistics. Python High Perform Sci Comput 2011; 14(9): 1-9.
| Google Scholar |
19 Hunter JD. Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Comput Sci Eng 2007; 9(03): 90-5.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
20 Waskom ML. Seaborn: statistical data visualization. J Open Source Softw 2021; 6(60): 3021.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
