Standardising workforce cost estimates across Australian jurisdictions: genomic testing as a use case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".