Abstract：Objective To compare and analyze two types of cost accounting methods. Method Two cost account methods (Method 1 was based on patients’ payment and Method 2 was cost accounting of disease species based on clinical path cost locationon) was used to measure the cost of hip osteoarthritis (primary or secondary), total hip arthroplasty; severe knee osteoarthritis, total knee arthroplasty; chronic tonsillitis, tonsillectomy; senile cataract, cataract phacoemulsification + intraocular lens implantation; primary hepatocellular carcinoma, partial hepatectomy or hepatectomy among 5 sample hospitals in 2019. Results In Method 1, the difference in direct human cost leaded to great distinction in total cost and cost balance among sample hospitals. Besides, most direct cost accounted for about 80% using Method 1, while most of the direct costs in method 2 were less than 80% using Method 2. The medical material expense of some disease measured by Method 2 was lower than that measured by Method 1. Conclusion As for Method 1, it is relatively difficult to acquire required data, but it can meet the needs of hospital internal management. While as for Method 2, it is easy to obtain necessary data, and it is conducive to the standardize the cost path and analyze the causes of abnormal disease cost.
2020, Vol. 17 
京公网安备 11010502046598号