The Benefits of Coronavirus Suppression: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Response to the First Wave of COVID-19 in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Broughel ◽  
Michael Kotrous
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Benefit Analysis

Precaution, Proportionality, and Cost/Benefit Analysis: False Analogies

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Rose–Ackerman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Proportionality Principle

The Politics of Precaution by David Vogel, and the edited volume, The Reality of Precaution each compare the United States with Europe over a range of regulatory areas. Vogel claims that the US and Europe changed places in recent years with Europe becoming more precautionary than the US. The edited volume covers a wider range of topics and finds that the results are mixed. The evidence of diversity in the edited volume appears convincing, but this essay argues that both volumes too narrowly focus on the precautionary principle. Rather it argues for a broader context that confronts precaution both with the proportionality principle, which is a mainstay of European Union law, and with the limitations of cost/benefit analysis and Impact Assessment. It unpacks the normative underpinnings of these concepts to suggest a broader frame for policy analysis.

scholarly journals Cost-benefit Analysis of Maintaining a Fully Stocked Malignant Hyperthermia Cart versus an Initial Dantrolene Treatment Dose for Maternity Units

2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phi T. Ho ◽  
Brendan Carvalho ◽  
Eric C. Sun ◽  
Alex Macario ◽  
Edward T. Riley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Malignant Hyperthermia ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Maternity Unit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
General Anesthetic ◽  
Tree Model

Abstract What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background The Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States recommends that dantrolene be available for administration within 10 min. One approach to dantrolene availability is a malignant hyperthermia cart, stocked with dantrolene, other drugs, and supplies. However, this may not be of cost benefit for maternity units, where triggering agents are rarely used. Methods The authors performed a cost-benefit analysis of maintaining a malignant hyperthermia cart versus a malignant hyperthermia cart readily available within the hospital versus an initial dantrolene dose of 250 mg, on every maternity unit in the United States. A decision-tree model was used to estimate the expected number of lives saved, and this benefit was compared against the expected costs of the policy. Results We found that maintaining a malignant hyperthermia cart in every maternity unit in the United States would reduce morbidity and mortality costs by $3,304,641 per year nationally but would cost $5,927,040 annually. Sensitivity analyses showed that our results were largely driven by the extremely low incidence of general anesthesia. If cesarean delivery rates in the United States remained at 32% of all births, the general anesthetic rate would have to be greater than 11% to achieve cost benefit. The only cost-effective strategy is to keep a 250-mg dose of dantrolene on the unit for starting therapy. Conclusions It is not of cost benefit to maintain a fully stocked malignant hyperthermia cart with a full supply of dantrolene within 10 min of maternity units. We recommend that hospitals institute alternative strategies (e.g., maintain a small supply of dantrolene on the maternity unit for starting treatment).

Routine second-trimester ultrasonography in the United States: A cost-benefit analysis

2000 ◽  
Vol 182 (3) ◽  
pp. 655-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony M. Vintzileos ◽  
Cande V. Ananth ◽  
John C. Smulian ◽  
Tryfon Beazoglou ◽  
Robert A. Knuppel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Second Trimester ◽  
Benefit Analysis

scholarly journals Cost-benefit analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in pregnant women in a high burden setting in the United States

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared Ditkowsky ◽  
Khushal H. Shah ◽  
Margaret R. Hammerschlag ◽  
Stephan Kohlhoff ◽  
Tamar A. Smith-Norowitz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Chlamydia Trachomatis ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
High Burden

scholarly journals Valuing Foreign Lives and Settlements

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
David A. Dana
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
Revealed Preference ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Implicit Assumption ◽  
Benefit Analysis

AbstractCost-benefit analysis in the United States for policy and legal purposes traditionally has been highly parochial, excluding not just losses or gains of welfare to non-U.S. residents from a given policy but also excluding any losses or gains in welfare U.S. residents would experience as a result of impacts to foreigners and foreign settlements. In the climate change context, this approach has meant that cost-benefit analyses for the costs of unmitigated climate change to the United States value at zero the losses that U.S. residents will bear as a result of the direct, adverse impacts of climate change to foreign lives and settlements. This article argues that there are sound theoretical reasons to include such welfare losses in a cost-benefit analysis, and that doing so requires going beyond revealed preference data to consider stated preference surveys. The article presents the findings of internet-based surveys that strongly suggest that the implicit assumption of the current approach to cost-benefit analysis in the United States—that U.S. residents value foreign lives and settlements that may be destroyed by climate change at zero—is untenable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document