Table 4. Full-sample two-center cost analysis (mean cost in £, 95% CI).
| Intervention (205 patients) | Standard care (212 patients) | Incremental cost | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inpatient cost | 1477 (1060, 2016) | 1689 (1131, 2359) | -212 (-1019, 537) |
| Day-case cost | 1134 (1047, 1233) | 979 (908, 1061) | 156 (36, 278) |
| Outpatient cost | 470 (391, 563) | 424 (345, 509) | 46 (-78, 167) |
| Total healthcare cost a | 3081 (2636, 3633) | 3091 (2502, 3806) | -10 (-860, 763) |
| Social care cost b | 1186 (864, 1586) | 966 (652, 1344) | 220 (-270, 706) |
| The cost of care | 4267 (3697, 4934) | 4057 (3367, 4882) | 210 (-809, 1165) |
| The intervention cost | 208 (192, 227) | 0 | 208 (192, 227) |
| Total cost (care cost + intervention cost) | 4475 (3901, 5141) | 4057 (3367, 4882) | 419 (-597, 1371) |
aInpatient, day-case and outpatient cost data were collected for both locations, Nottingham and Leicester. The mean healthcare cost for the Nottingham sample was £3569 (95%CI: 3068, 4220), the mean healthcare cost for the Leicester sample was £2269 (95%CI: 1854, 2810), with healthcare cost significantly lower in the Leicester sample by -£1300 (95% CI: -2019, -516). This statistically significant difference may be attributed to significantly higher percentage of care home residents in the Leicester sub-sample (34.2% vs. 21.0%, p < 0.01), for whom healthcare cost was significantly lower than for non-residents in the whole sample (by -£880 (95%CI: -1631, -192)), to other non-observable differences between Leicester and Nottingham patient populations, as well as to different coding systems between sites (S2 Appendix). The two centre retrospective resource use datasets obtained for this study, and for related previous cost cohort study, [10] did not allow us to ascertain the latter hypothesis and explain fully the reasons of the difference in secondary care costs between Nottingham and Leicester.
bThe mean social care cost for the Nottingham sample was £1010 (95%CI: 720, 1338), the mean social care cost for the Leicester sample was £1183 (95%CI: 770, 1652), with social care cost non-significantly higher in the Leicester sample by £173 (95% CI: -354, 726). Despite significantly higher percentage of care home residents in Leicester sample, for whom social care cost was higher than for non-residents in the whole sample (by £1026 (95%CI: 361, 1026)), social care cost in Leicester was not higher significantly and was not higher enough to reduce the overall difference in costs between sites. The reason could be that in the Leicester sample the percentage of patients living alone was significantly lower than in the Nottingham sample (31.0% vs. 46.6%, p < 0.01), and in the whole sample social care costs for those living alone was significantly higher by £804 (95%CI: 381, 1283), when comparing to those living with spouse. Social care costs was £366 (95%CI: 146, 585), £1170 (95%CI: 817, 1603), and £1835 (95%CI: 1209, 2517), for living with spouse, for living alone, and for care home residents, respectively.