A Systematic Review of Inpatient Care Costs: Evaluating Cost Coverage and Financial Sustainability for Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cost of inpatient hospital services is an important factor in the financial sustainability of health facilities. The ever-increasing cost of hospitalization poses a challenge to hospitals' financial sustainability, especially since the discrepancy between INA-CBG rates and actual costs often causes financial problems. This can reduce operational efficiency and service quality, particularly for vulnerable communities. This study to analyze the evaluation of the coverage of hospital care costs and financial sustainability. The methods A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Data were obtained from two main databases: Google Scholar and Garuda. A total of thirteen research articles met the inclusion criteria (articles from 2019–2024 that used the activity-based costing approach and were relevant to inpatient service rates). Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and internal validation questions. The results show that the ABC method provides a more accurate estimation of inpatient costs than the conventional method. There was a significant difference between the actual hospital rates and the ABC calculation results in the form of both under- and over-costing. Five studies showed lower rates than actual costs, while three studies showed higher rates. Conclusion: The application of ABC method is important for cost efficiency, fair tariff setting, and hospital financial stability and supports tariff negotiations with payers such as INA-CBGs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".