scholarly journals Applied Methods of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Health Care

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 317-317
Author(s):  
C. Green
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis

scholarly journals Prioritized list of health services in the Islamic Republic of Iran

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 367-371
Author(s):  
B. Larijani ◽  
O. Ameli ◽  
K. Alizadeh ◽  
S. R. Mirsharifi
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Therapeutic Procedures ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
The Government

We aimed to provide a prioritized list of preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and their appropriate classification based on a cost-benefit analysis. Functional benchmarking was used to select a rationing model. Teams of qualified specialists working in community hospitals scored procedures from CPTTM according to their cost and benefit elements. The prioritized list of services model of Oregon, United States of America was selected as the functional benchmark. In contrast to its benchmark, our country’s prioritized list of services is primarily designed to help the government in policy-making with the rationing of health care resources, especially for hospitals

An Economic Analysis and Approach for Health Care Preparedness in a Substate Region

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 344-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benoit Stryckman ◽  
Thomas L. Grace ◽  
Peter Schwarz ◽  
David Marcozzi
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Emergency Response ◽  
Return On Investment ◽  
Catchment Area ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Response Team ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Positive Return

AbstractObjectiveTo demonstrate the application of economics to health care preparedness by estimating the financial return on investment in a substate regional emergency response team and to develop a financial model aimed at sustaining community-level disaster readiness.MethodsEconomic evaluation methods were applied to the experience of a regional Pennsylvania response capability. A cost-benefit analysis was performed by using information on funding of the response team and 17 real-world events the team responded to between 2008 and 2013. By use of the results of the cost-benefit analysis as well as information on the response team’s catchment area, a risk-based insurance-like membership model was built.ResultsThe cost-benefit analysis showed a positive return after 6 years of investment in the regional emergency response team. Financial modeling allowed for the calculation of premiums for 2 types of providers within the emergency response team’s catchment area: hospitals and long-term care facilities.ConclusionThe analysis indicated that preparedness activities have a positive return on their investment in this substate region. By applying economic principles, communities can estimate their return on investment to make better business decisions in an effort to increase the sustainability of emergency preparedness programs at the regional level. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:344–348)

The Concept of Cost in the Economic Evaluation of Health Care: A Theoretical Inquiry

1994 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 675-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magnus Johannesson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Treatment Program ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Full Economic Evaluation ◽  
The Individual

AbstractThe costs included in economic evaluations of health care vary from study to study. Based on the theory of cost-benefit analysis, the costs that should be included in an economic evaluation are those not already included in the measurement of willingness to pay (net willingness to pay above any treatment costs paid by the individual) in a cost-benefit analysis or in the easurement of effectiveness in a cost-effectiveness analysis. These costs can be defined as the onsumption externality of the treatment (the change in production minus consumption for those included in the treatment program). For a full economic evaluation, the consequences for those included in the treatment program and a caring externality (altruism) should also be added.

Neonatal Intensive Care: Cost-Benefit Analysis

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 798-798
Author(s):  
DANIEL R. NEUSPIEL
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Economic Productivity ◽  
Severely Handicapped

To the Editor.— Walker et al1 have contributed to the recent plethora of studies applying cost-benefit analysis to the provision of health care. In using this dangerous method to determine the value of neonatal intensive care, they legitimize the acceptance of cost criteria for the rationing of health services. This approach reduces the measurement of human life to economic productivity and accepts the unproven contention of dwindling societal resources available for health care. Walker et al divided their subjejcts according to their neurodevelopmental evaluation into four categories: normal, (midly imapired, moderately impaired, or severely handicapped).

Neonatal Intensive Care: Cost-Benefit Analysis

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 799-800
Author(s):  
DONNA-JEAN B. WALKER ◽  
ALLAN FELDMAN ◽  
BETTY R. VOHR ◽  
WILLIAM OH
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Very Low Birth Weight ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Low Birth Weight Infants ◽  
Final Sentence

In Reply.— In response to the comments on our paper1 dealing with the issue of cost-benefit analysis of health care delivery to the very low-birth-weight infants. 1. Neuspiel raised two issues. The first issue refers to placing a dollar value on human life. The final sentence of the abstract of our paper may be read by some to infer that care of infants weighing less than 900 g at birth is not economically beneficial; therefore, these infants should be restricted from receiving this care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document