An Economic Evaluation of Public and Organized Wildfire Detection in Wisconsin

1998 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 205 ◽  
Author(s):  
TW Steele ◽  
JC Stier
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Detection Efficiency ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Baseline Scenario ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
The Public ◽  
Damage Prevention

Early detection is the first step toward effective wildfire control. This study used cost-benefit techniques to evaluate the economic efficiency of fixed lookouts for wildfire detection in Wisconsin. Costs and benefits were assessed relative to a baseline scenario of public detection alone. Analyses revealed that fixed lookouts were economically efficient in aggregate; however, their performance varied considerably among administrative areas and among lookouts. Twenty-five percent of the fixed lookouts detected the majority of wildfires and accounted for virtually all suppression cost savings and property damage prevention. Additional analyses showed that fixed lookouts and the public saw wildfire that were significantly different. Specifically, the public tended to detect wildfires in developed areas at a relatively early stage, whereas fixed lookouts spotted fires in more remote, sparsely populated regions. These findings suggest that opportunities exist to enhance wildfire detection efficiency and cost effectiveness by selectively adjusting lookout use.

Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis to the Health Services and the Special Case of Technologic Innovation

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert E. Klarman
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
The Public ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

As an economic technique for evaluating specific projects or programs in the public sector, cost-benefit analysis is relatively new. In this paper, the theory and practice of cost-benefit analysis in general are discussed as a basis for considering its role in assessing technology in the health services. A review of the literature on applications of cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis to the health field reveals that few complete studies have been conducted to date. It is suggested that an adequate analysis requires an empirical approach in which costs and benefits are juxtaposed, and in which presumed benefits reflect an ascertained relationship between inputs and outputs. A threefold classification of benefits is commonly employed: direct, indirect, and intangible. Since the latter pose difficulty, cost-effectiveness analysis is often the more practicable procedure. After summarizing some problems in predicting how technologic developments are likely to affect costs and benefits, the method of cost-benefit analysis is applied to developments of health systems technology in two settings-the hospital and automated multiphasic screening. These examples underscore the importance of solving problems of measurement and valuation of a project or program in its concrete setting. Finally, barriers to the performance of sound and systematic analysis are listed, and the political context of decision making in the public sector is emphasized.

scholarly journals Economic evaluations of health care interventions in Oropharyngeal Dysphagia after Stroke: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Marin ◽  
Mateu Serra-Prat ◽  
Omar Ortega ◽  
Pere Clavé
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Oropharyngeal Dysphagia ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Healthcare Interventions ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background and purpose: Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (OD) affects 40-81% of patients after stroke. A recent systematic review on the costs of OD and it’s main complications showed higher acute and long-term costs for those patients who developed OD, malnutrition and pneumonia after stroke. These results suggest that appropriate management of post-stroke OD could lead to reduction of clinical complications and significant cost savings. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the available literature exploring the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of available healthcare interventions on the appropriate management of OD. Methods: A systematic review on economic evaluations of health care interventions on post-stroke patients with OD following PRISMA recommendations will be performed. MEDLINE, Embase, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry Database will be searched and a subsequent reference check will be done. English and Spanish literature will be included without date restrictions. Studies will be included if they refer to economic evaluations or studies in which cost savings were reported in post-stroke patients suffering OD. Studies will be excluded if they are partial economic evaluation studies, if they refer to esophageal dysphagia, or if OD is caused by causes different from stroke. Evidence will be presented and synthetized with a narrative method and using tables. Quality evaluation will be done using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement. Discussion: The protocol for this systematic review is the first step to assess the cost-effectiveness of the healthcare interventions that have been described as potential treatments for post-stroke OD. This systematic review will summarize the current evidence on the relation between cost and benefits associated with the appropriate management of OD in post-stroke patients. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020136245

scholarly journals Early Economic Evaluation of Diagnostic Technologies: Experiences of the NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (7) ◽  
pp. 857-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Abel ◽  
Bethany Shinkins ◽  
Alison Smith ◽  
Andrew J. Sutton ◽  
Gurdeep S. Sagoo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Treatment Effectiveness ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Early Model ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Diagnostic Technologies ◽  
Evidence Generation

Diagnostic tests are expensive and time-consuming to develop. Early economic evaluation using decision modeling can reduce commercial risk by providing early evidence on cost-effectiveness. The National Institute for Health Research Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives (DECs) was established to catalyze evidence generation for diagnostic tests by collaborating with commercial developers; DEC researchers have consequently made extensive use of early modeling. The aim of this article is to summarize the experiences of the DECs using early modeling for diagnostics. We draw on 8 case studies to illustrate the methods, highlight methodological strengths and weaknesses particular to diagnostics, and provide advice. The case studies covered diagnosis, screening, and treatment stratification. Treatment effectiveness was a crucial determinant of cost-effectiveness in all cases, but robust evidence to inform this parameter was sparse. This risked limiting the usability of the results, although characterization of this uncertainty in turn highlighted the value of further evidence generation. Researchers evaluating early models must be aware of the importance of treatment effect evidence when reviewing the cost-effectiveness of diagnostics. Researchers planning to develop an early model of a test should also 1) consult widely with clinicians to ensure the model reflects real-world patient care; 2) develop comprehensive models that can be updated as the technology develops, rather than taking a “quick and dirty” approach that may risk producing misleading results; and 3) use flexible methods of reviewing evidence and evaluating model results, to fit the needs of multiple decision makers. Decision models can provide vital information for developers at an early stage, although limited evidence mean researchers should proceed with caution.

Measuring the Public Costs and Benefits of Brownfield versus Greenfield Development in the Greater Toronto Area

10.1068/b1283 ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A De Sousa
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Quantitative Model ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Economic Costs ◽  
Brownfield Redevelopment ◽  
The Public ◽  
Greater Toronto Area ◽  
Development Scenarios ◽  
Public Costs ◽  
Shed Light

This paper summarizes the findings of a study comparing the environmental, social, and economic costs and benefits accruing to the public from redeveloping brownfields versus developing greenfields for both industrial and residential uses. With data taken from relevant projects in Toronto, Canada, four prototypical development scenarios were constructed for the purpose of a cost — benefit comparison. A quantitative model was then used to calculate the various public costs and benefits associated with the different scenarios. The findings shed light on the true costs and benefits involved in development and redevelopment projects, helping policymakers better assess the feasibility of brownfield redevelopment vis-à-vis greenfield development.

scholarly journals Economic analysis of the stand-by emergency treatment (SBET) for malaria in travellers

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Ferrara
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
National Health ◽  
Emergency Treatment ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Social Costs ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Imported Case ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract Background Stand-by emergency treatment (SBET) is a possible approach for malaria prevention in travellers to low transmission areas (such as South-Eastern Asia [SEA]), but current evidence casts doubts on its feasibility and does not allow to decide whether this strategy is economically rational. Thus, this research aimed to appraise SBET in terms of cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). Methods To design a specific model, SBET benefits (valued as avoided direct and indirect costs of illness) were weighted against the costs associated with SBET doses to be prescribed in order to avoid one imported case of malaria. Direct healthcare costs were obtained allocating last surveillance data for imported malaria to the charge of the corresponding diagnosis-related group category and estimating outpatient care costs. Indirect social costs were calculated in terms of lost productivity. The economic framework was adjusted for the probability of malaria transmission in SEA region and weighed on the Italian context. Results In the model, for five malaria cases estimated to be imported from SEA to Italy in 2017, it was calculated that NHS would be charged with around € 22,487·50. Social costs were determined at € 7,100. Thus, the total Italian public expenditure for malaria cases in SEA travellers was of € 29,587·50 in 2017. In contrast, 50,000 doses were considered to be carried to avoid one malaria imported case, with a cost of € 2.5 million. Conclusions At cost-effectiveness analysis, reimbursement strategy does not lead to a favourable gain owing to the total cost of the SBET doses to be prescribed for avoiding one malaria case. The appraisal of costs and benefits brings into question the economic validation of SBET, also calling for further strategies to be reassessed for travellers to low-risk areas. Key messages Besides the evidence of incorrect SBET use among travellers, the appraisal of costs and benefits brings into question the economic validation of this strategy. Reimbursement for SBET seems to be not cost–effective from the perspective of National Health Services.

scholarly journals Moral Uncertainty Over Policy Evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kian Mintz-Woo
Keyword(s):  
Policy Evaluation ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Present Value ◽  
Domain Experts ◽  
The Public ◽  
Moral Uncertainty ◽  
Interesting Class ◽  
Special Case

When performing intertemporal cost-benefit analyses of policies, both in terms of climate change and other long-term problems, the discounting problem becomes critical. The question is how to weight intertemporal costs and benefits to generate present value equivalents. This thesis argues that those best placed to answer the discounting problem are domain experts, not moral philosophers or the public at large. It does this by arguing that the discounting problem is a special case of an interesting class of problems, those which are both what I call morally complex and quantitative.

scholarly journals Neuropsychological rehabilitation interventions for people with an acquired brain injury and their caregivers. A protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Eileen Mitchell ◽  
Elayne Ahern ◽  
Sanjib Saha ◽  
Dominic Trepel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Acquired Brain Injury ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology

Background: New emerging evidence has demonstrated the need for effective interventions to help people living with an acquired brain injury (ABI). Evidence on cost-effectiveness, which can help inform use of limited resources, is scarce in this area and therefore the purpose of this systematic review is to critically appraise and consolidate the current evidence on economic evaluations of ABI rehabilitation interventions. Methods: Systematic review methodology will be applied to identify, select and extract data from published economic evaluation studies (trial-based, non-trial based, simulation-based, decision model and trial-based model economic evaluations) of ABI treatment interventions in adults. A systematic literature search will be conducted on the following electronic databases: EMBASE, Econlit, CINAHL, Medline, Econlit, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and PsyclNFO. This review will only include cost-effectiveness analysis studies (e.g., cost per life year gained), cost-benefit and cost minimisation analyses in which the designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCT studies, cost-utility analyses (e.g., cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained or cost per disability-adjusted life year averted), cohort studies, and modeling studies. Only studies that were published in English, associated with adults who have an ABI will be included. There will be no restrictions on perspective, sample size, country, follow-up duration or setting. The search strategy terms will include the following: acquired brain injury, brain*; cost*; or cost–benefit analysis*. Following data extraction, a narrative summary and tables will be used to summarize the characteristics and results of included studies. Discussion: The findings from this review will be beneficial to health policy decision makers when examining the evidence of economic evaluations in this field. In addition, it is anticipated that this review will identify gaps in the current economic literature to inform future-related research. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020187469 (25th June 2020).

Health Economics of Vaccination and Immunization Practices

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Szucs
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Vaccination Programs ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Wide Range

The economic importance of vaccines lies partly in the burden of disease that can be avoided and partly in the competition for resources between vaccines and other interventions. Decision-makers are increasingly demanding hard economic data as a basis for the allocation of limited healthcare resources. The main types of evaluation available are cost-benefit analysis (best use of allocated resources), cost-effectiveness analysis (a tool that helps policy-makers decide on the overall allocation of resources), and cost-utility analysis (quality-adjusted life year [QALY] which allows for a direct comparison of a wide range of medical interventions). The cost per QALY for a range of vaccinations can be compared in order to plan a vaccination program. Public health vaccines warrant a cost-benefit approach, in order to determine if they are worthwhile, whereas recommended vaccines might be more usefully assessed by cost-effectiveness analysis. Although cost-savings do not necessarily equate with cost-effectiveness, cost-savings are achieved in many vaccination programs.

scholarly journals Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluation of Returning Incidental Findings in Genomic Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayara Fontes Marx ◽  
John E. Ataguba ◽  
Jantina de Vries ◽  
Ambroise Wonkam
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Incidental Findings ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Genomic Sequencing ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Objectives: Discussions regarding who and how incidental findings (IFs) should be returned and the ethics behind returning IFs have increased dramatically over the years. However, information on the cost and benefits of returning IFs to patients remains scanty.Design: This study systematically reviews the economic evaluation of returning IFs in genomic sequencing. We searched for published articles on the cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-utility of IFs in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar.Results: We found six published articles that met the eligibility criteria of this study. Two articles used cost analysis only, one used cost-benefit analysis only, two used both cost analysis and cost-effectiveness, and one used both cost-benefit analysis and cost-utility to describe the cost of returning IFs in genomic sequencing.Conclusion: While individuals value the IF results and are willing to pay for them, the cost of returning IFs depends on the primary health condition of the patient. Although patients were willing to pay, there was no clear evidence that returning IFs might be cost-effective. More rigorous economic evaluation studies of IFs are needed to determine whether or not the cost of returning IFs is beneficial to the patient.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document