作业成本法和传统成本法的差异:基于血液透析间接成本分摊的核算  

The Differences between ABC and the Traditional Cost Method: Accounting Based on the Hemodialysis Indirect Cost Allocation

作　　者：赵宁[1] 赵琨[2] 郭武栋[2] 申俊龙[1] 齐雪然[2] 徐浩[1] 

机构地区：[1]南京中医药大学,南京210046 [2]卫生部卫生发展研究中心,北京100191

出　　处：《中国卫生经济》2013年第6期90-92,共3页Chinese Health Economics

基　　金：卫生部课题--终末期肾病(ESRD)透析治疗评估及支付方式研究(04063)

摘　　要：目的:分析作业成本法与传统成本法对血液透析成本的核算是否存在差异。方法:回顾性调查并核算7所三级甲等医院2010年血液透析成本,并进行相关统计学分析。结果:使用两种方法核算的血液透析均次成本差值区间为(0.07,1.05)元,最高成本差异仅占所在核算对象平均间接成本总额的0.39%,且没有统计学显著性差异。结论:两种方法对血液透析成本的核算不存在差异,均可用于血液透析成本的核算。Ahstract Objective： Analyze if there is any difference between ABC and the traditional cost method in the accounting of hemodialysis. Methods： Retrospectively investigate and account the hemodialysis cost of 7 hospitals in 2010, and make statistical analysis. Results： The cost difference interval between two methods is （0.07, 1.05） yuan, and the highest cost variance between two methods is only 0.39% of the average of total indirect costs. Meanwhile, there is no statistically significant difference. Conclusion： There is no difference between ABC and the traditional cost method in the accounting of hemodialysis, and both the two methods can be used in the cost accounting of hemodialysis,

关 键 词：作业成本法 传统成本法 血液透析 间接成本分摊 

分 类 号：R459.5[医药卫生—治疗学]