scholarly journals Potential Cost Savings With Low-Dose Abiraterone in the United States

2020 ◽  
pp. 743-744
Author(s):  
Naveen Premnath ◽  
Ramy Sedhom ◽  
Arjun Gupta
1977 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
N D Uri

The issue that is addressed concerns the potential cost savings to a portion of the United States if the economic advantages some regions possess in generating electrical energy are passed on to other regions. The basic conclusions include the argument that a misallocation of electrical energy among consumer sectors exists, that societal welfare could be increased if the industry were to operate from an aggregate power-system viewpoint, and finally that the industry, in the aggregate, is charging a price in excess of the marginal cost of supplying electrical energy.


2020 ◽  
pp. 64-78
Author(s):  
Lea Shaver

This chapter covers the difficulties of distributing books, especially developing countries that contend with limited transportation infrastructure and unreliable postal systems. From Pratham Books' perspective, “Creating access is infinitely harder than creating books,” Suzanne Singh states plainly. It explains how postal systems offer a convenient and cost-effective way to deliver hard-copy books. In the United States, Imagination Library spends pennies per book to ship directly to children's homes. The trade-off, however, is that the recipients have no ability to select particular books of interest. The chapter also explains how digital technology offers to make books “magically appear” in a different way. For charities looking to make their budgets stretch, these potential cost savings are significant and very attractive. For this reason, literacy charities in the developing world are increasingly emphasizing digital content.


Author(s):  
Manesha Putra ◽  
Madagedara Maduka Balasooriya ◽  
Alexander L. Boscia ◽  
Evrim Dalkiran ◽  
Robert J. Sokol

Abstract Objective American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) published new guidelines which lower the cut-off for hypertension. We sought to evaluate the impact of these guidelines to cost and benefit of various low-dose aspirin prophylaxis approaches. Study Design Decision tree analysis was created using R software to evaluate four approaches to aspirin prophylaxis in the United States: no aspirin, United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) with Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7) hypertension guidelines, USPSTF with ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines, as well as universal aspirin prophylaxis. This model was executed to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 4 million pregnant women in the United States. Results The new guidelines would expand the aspirin eligibility by 8% (76,953 women) in the USPSTF guidelines. Even with this increased eligibility, the USPSTF guidelines continue to be the approach with the most cost savings ($386.5 million) when compared with universal aspirin and no aspirin prophylaxis. The new hypertension guidelines are projected to increase the cost savings of the USPSTF approach by $9.4 million. Conclusion Despite the small change in aspirin prophylaxis, using ACC/AHA definition of hypertension still results in an annual cost-saving of $9.4 million in the United States when compared with JNC7.


Pneumonia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bisma Ali Sayed ◽  
Drew L. Posey ◽  
Brian Maskery ◽  
La’Marcus T. Wingate ◽  
Martin S. Cetron

Abstract Background While persons who receive immigrant and refugee visas are screened for active tuberculosis before admission into the United States, nonimmigrant visa applicants (NIVs) are not routinely screened and may enter the United States with infectious tuberculosis. Objectives We evaluated the costs and benefits of expanding pre-departure tuberculosis screening requirements to a subset of NIVs who arrive from a moderate (Mexico) or high (India) incidence tuberculosis country with temporary work visas. Methods We developed a decision tree model to evaluate the program costs and estimate the numbers of active tuberculosis cases that may be diagnosed in the United States in two scenarios: 1) “Screening”: screening and treatment for tuberculosis among NIVs in their home country with recommended U.S. follow-up for NIVs at elevated risk of active tuberculosis; and, 2) “No Screening” in their home country so that cases would be diagnosed passively and treatment occurs after entry into the United States. Costs were assessed from multiple perspectives, including multinational and U.S.-only perspectives. Results Under “Screening” versus “No Screening”, an estimated 179 active tuberculosis cases and 119 hospitalizations would be averted in the United States annually via predeparture treatment. From the U.S.-only perspective, this program would result in annual net cost savings of about $3.75 million. However, rom the multinational perspective, the screening program would cost $151,388 per U.S. case averted for Indian NIVs and $221,088 per U.S. case averted for Mexican NIVs. Conclusion From the U.S.-only perspective, the screening program would result in substantial cost savings in the form of reduced treatment and hospitalization costs. NIVs would incur increased pre-departure screening and treatment costs.


Author(s):  
Robert I. Roth ◽  
Nicholas M. Fleischer

Recent years have seen the approvals, more so in the EU than the United States, of follow-on biological drugs. These products have been new formulations of recombinant therapeutic proteins, developed to compete with the marketed originator products. Intended to closely mimic the originator products in terms of chemistry and therapeutic properties, these so-called ‘biosimilar’ products were initially conceived to be developed according to abbreviated development programmes, presumably at a substantial cost savings to both the drug developer and the consumer. With several such products now recently approved, however, it has become clear that their development programmes have been quite extensive and not particularly abbreviated. Accordingly, cost savings to consumers appear to be relatively modest.


2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie M. Mhlaba ◽  
Emily W. Stockert ◽  
Martin Coronel ◽  
Alexander J. Langerman

Objective: Operating rooms (OR) generate a large portion of hospital revenue and waste. Consequently, improving efficiency and reducing waste is a high priority. Our objective was to quantify waste associated with opened but unused instruments from trays and to compare this with the cost of individually wrapping instruments.Methods: Data was collected from June to November of 2013 in a 550-bed hospital in the United States. We recorded the instrument usage of two commonly-used trays for ten cases each. The time to decontaminate and reassemble instrument trays and peel packs was measured, and the cost to reprocess one instrument was calculated.Results: Average utilization was 14% for the Plastic Soft Tissue Tray and 29% for the Major Laparotomy Tray. Of 98 instruments in the Plastics tray (n = 10), 0% was used in all cases observed and 59% were used in no observed cases. Of 110 instruments in the Major Tray (n = 10), 0% was used in all cases observed and 25% were used in no observed cases. Average cost to reprocess one instrument was $0.34-$0.47 in a tray and $0.81-$0.84 in a peel pack, or individually-wrapped instrument.Conclusions: We estimate that the cost of peel packing an instrument is roughly two times the cost of tray packing. Therefore, it becomes more cost effective from a processing standpoint to package an instrument in a peel pack when there is less than a 42%-56% probability of use depending on instrument type. This study demonstrates an opportunity for reorganization of instrument delivery that could result in a significant cost-savings and waste reduction.


10.36469/9861 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Mark Stephens ◽  
Samuel Brotherton ◽  
Stephan C. Dunning ◽  
Larry C. Emerson ◽  
David T. Gilbertson ◽  
...  

Background: The costs of transporting end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients to dialysis centers are high and growing rapidly. Research has suggested that substantial cost savings could be achieved if medically appropriate transport was made available and covered by Medicare. Objectives: To estimate US dialysis transportation costs from a purchaser’s perspective, and to estimate cost savings that could be achieved if less expensive means of transport were utilized. Methods: Costs were estimated using an actuarial model. Travel distance estimates were calculated using GIS software from patient ZIP codes and dialysis facility addresses. Cost and utilization estimates were derived from fee schedules, government reports, transportation websites and peer-reviewed literature. Results: The estimated annual cost of dialysis transportation in the United States is $3.0 billion, half of which is for ambulances. Most other costs are due to transport via ambulettes, wheelchair vans and taxis. Approximately 5% of costs incurred are for private vehicle or public transportation use. If ambulance use dropped to 1% of trips from the current 5%, costs could be reduced by one-third. Conclusions: Decision-makers should consider policies to reduce ambulance use, while providing appropriate levels of care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document