scholarly journals Estimation of cost-effectiveness of poplar wood production in poplar plantations in Ravni Srem based on the cost-benefit method

2011 ◽  
pp. 81-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Keca
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Discount Rate ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Wood Production ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
Poplar Plantations ◽  
Economic Analyses ◽  
The Cost

Cost-effectiveness of polar cultivation was analyzed based on one of the indicators for the assessment of agriculture and forestry projects - cost-benefit (r). Poplar plantations of the clone I-214 of different rotations and on different soil types were analyzed in the area of Ravni Srem. The aim of the study was to evaluate the justification of the invested financial means in wood production in poplar plantations, based on the analysis of costs and receipts at different plantation ages, using the cost-benefit method. It was found that in all 13 analyzed compartments, the average cost-benefit ratio was 0.36. This means that the costs at the discount rate of 12% are about 2.8 times higher than the receipts. Accordingly, it can be asserted that it is economically unjustified to invest in the projected stands, but only in the case when the value of social capital accounts for 12%. Based on the analysis of sensitivity of the cost-benefit method, it was concluded that cost benefit ratio for p=8-12% was below 1 within the study range of costs and receipts changes, while for p=4-6% this ratio was above 1 in some cases of decrease in costs, i.e. increase in receipts. It was noted that the change in r depending on the change in costs, developed by the exponential function, and the change in r depending on the change in receipts developed by the linear function. Also, it was concluded that at the lower discount rates, the values of r moved towards 1, so for 8% r=0.71, and for 6% r=0.94. The value at the discount rate of 4% indicates that the project is cost-effective and that the invested ? 1 makes ? 1.22. This fact is especially important when poplar cultivation projects are ranked. For this reason, this method is used for the evaluation of social benefits, i.e. for economic analyses. It is almost never applied in the analysis of private investments.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of a physician-nurse supplementary triage assessment team at an academic tertiary care emergency department

CJEM ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivy Cheng ◽  
Maaret Castren ◽  
Alex Kiss ◽  
Merrick Zwarenstein ◽  
Mats Brommels ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Additional Patient ◽  
Patient Volume ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of physician-nurse supplementary triage assistance team (MDRNSTAT) from a hospital and patient perspective.MethodsThis was a cost-effectiveness evaluation of a cluster randomized control trial comparing the MDRNSTAT with nurse-only triage in the emergency department (ED) between the hours of 0800 and 1500. Cost was MDRNSTAT salary. Revenue was from Ontario’s Pay-for-Results and patient volume-case mix payment programs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was based on MDRNSTAT cost and three consequence assessments: 1) per additional patient-seen; 2) per physician initial assessment (PIA) hour saved; and 3) per ED length of stay (EDLOS) hour saved. Patient opportunity cost was determined. Patient satisfaction was quantified by a cost-benefit ratio. A sensitivity analysis extrapolating MDRNSTAT to different working hours, salary, and willingness-to-pay data was performed.ResultsThe added cost of the MDRNSTAT was $3,597.27 [$1,729.47 to ∞] per additional patient-seen, $75.37 [$67.99 to $105.30] per PIA hour saved, and $112.99 [$74.68 to $251.43] per EDLOS hour saved. From the hospital perspective, the cost-benefit ratio was 38.6 [19.0 to ∞] and net present value of –$447,996 [–$435,646 to –$459,900]. For patients, the cost-benefit ratio for satisfaction was 2.8 [2.3 to 4.6]. If MDRNSTAT performance were consistently implemented from noon to midnight, it would be more cost-effective.ConclusionsThe MDRNSTAT is not a cost-effective daytime strategy but appears to be more feasible during time periods with higher patient volume, such as late morning to evening.

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of a School-based Combined Program with a Targeted Pit and Fissure Sealant and Fluoride Mouth Rinse in Japan

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 230-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shihoko Sakuma ◽  
Akihiro Yoshihara ◽  
Hideo Miyazaki ◽  
Seigo Kobayashi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Mouth Rinse ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Fissure Sealant ◽  
Program Cost ◽  
School Based ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost

Background: In Niigata prefecture, Japan, a system has been developed based on a school-based fluoride mouth rinse program as follows; students with caries susceptible teeth are screened in a school dental examination, and encouraged to receive sealant placement in local dental clinics. However, the cost-effectiveness of sealant application in the public health has been questioned. The aim of this study was to estimate of the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit ratio for a school-based combined program with fluoride mouth rinse and targeted fissure sealant in children residing in non-fluoridated areas in Japan. Participants: The analysis was based on comparing an intervention group with two cohorts in the 8-year-old (n=66) and 11-year-old (n=58) participating in the combined program for four and seven years, respectively, with a control group of the same grades (n=43 and n=54 respectively). Methods: The study measured mean differences in number of decayed and filled teeth (DFT) between the study groups and a combined program cost per child during study periods. The cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as an individual annual program cost per DFT averted. In the cost-benefit ratio the mean difference in treatment cost between groups (program benefit) was compared to program cost. Results: The mean reduced DFT differences between groups were 1.44 in 8-year-old and 3.17 in 11-year-old children. The cost-effectiveness ratio was ¥ 493 in the 8-year-old and ¥ 202 in the 11-year-old, respectively. The cost-benefit ratio was 1.84 in 8-year-old children and 2.42 in 11-year-old. Conclusion: This combined program indicated acceptable cost-effectiveness and cost –benefit ratio.

scholarly journals Why Some Firms Train Apprentices and Many Others Do Not

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan C. Wolter ◽  
Jürg Schweri ◽  
Samuel Mühlemann
Keyword(s):  
Labour Market ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Training System ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Apprenticeship Training ◽  
Effective Training ◽  
Market Situation ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

Abstract The latest study investigating the cost-benefit ratio of apprenticeship training for Swiss companies has shown that most apprentices offset the cost of their training during their apprenticeship on the basis of the productive contribution of the work they perform. Given this outcome, it is worth investigating why so many firms choose not to train apprentices. Maximum-likelihood selection models were used to estimate the net cost of training for firms without an apprenticeship programme. The models show, firstly, that non-training firms would incur significantly higher net cost during the apprenticeship period if they would switch to a training policy and, secondly, that this less favourable cost-benefit ratio is determined less by cost than by absence of benefit. For the apprenticeship system as such the results indicate that, as long as training regulations and the market situation permit a cost-effective training of apprentices, companies do not need specific labour market regulations or institutions to offer training posts. In this respect, the Swiss findings might be of interest for the ongoing German discussion about the expected repercussions of a more general labour market deregulation on the apprenticeship training system.

scholarly journals Estimation of cost-effectiveness of poplar wood pro­duction in Ravni Srem by applying the net present value method

2010 ◽  
pp. 81-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Keca
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Discount Rate ◽  
Net Present Value ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Production Cycle ◽  
Wood Production ◽  
Present Value ◽  
Concrete Case ◽  
Production Cycles ◽  
The Cost

The commercial cost-effectiveness of poplar cultivation was analyzed based on the indicator for the assessment of agriculture and forestry projects-net present value (NPV). The analysis was made for the plantations of poplar clone I-214 in the area of Ravni Srem, under different rotations and on different soil types. The aim of the research was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the invested financials in wood production in poplar plantations, based on the analysis of costs and receipts in different periods of plantation age, using the net present value method. Under the calculation discount rate of 12%, the project for the production cycle of 24-42 years was not cost-effective from the economic aspect. Investment under calculation discount rate 4% was financially justified in all the study cases. The discount rate of 6% can be accepted by shorter production cycles in the younger stands (to the age of 28 years) on better sites (alluvial semigley). In the case of susceptibility analysis for NPV, it can be concluded that the NPV amounts for 13 study compartments within the analyzed scope of receipts and costs have a negative sign. This leads to a conclusion that the project is more susceptible to the changes in costs than to the changes in receipts in the concrete case at the discount rate of 12%.

Home Visitation Investment

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-169
Author(s):  
NORMAN J. SISSMAN
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Home Visits ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Home Visitation ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Health Care Resources ◽  
Detailed Consideration ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
Women And Children ◽  
The Cost

To the Editor.— Two recent reviews in Pediatrics1,2 provide much interesting information on the effect of home visits on the health of women and children. However, I was disappointed not to find in either article more than token reference to the cost of the programs reviewed. In this day of increasingly scarce health care resources, we no longer have the luxury of evaluating programs such as these without detailed consideration of their cost-benefit ratio.

scholarly journals Ultrasound scan as a potential source of nosocomial and cross-infection: a literature review

2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 319-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Hadyme Miyague ◽  
Fernando Marum Mauad ◽  
Wellington de Paula Martins ◽  
Augusto César Garcia Benedetti ◽  
Ana Elizabeth Gomes de Melo Tavares Ferreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cross Infection ◽  
Ultrasound Scan ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Source Of Infection ◽  
Potential Source ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe authors review the main concepts regarding the importance of cleaning/disinfection of ultrasonography probes, aiming a better comprehension by practitioners and thus enabling strategies to establish a safe practice without compromising the quality of the examination and the operator productivity. In the context of biosafety, it is imperative to assume that contact with blood or body fluids represents a potential source of infection. Thus, in order to implement cleaning/disinfection practice, it is necessary to understand the principles of infection control, to consider the cost/benefit ratio of the measures to be implemented, and most importantly, to comprehend that such measures will not only benefit the health professional and the patient, but the society as a whole.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of a Problem-Solving Intervention Aimed to Prevent Sickness Absence among Employees with Common Mental Disorders or Occupational Stress

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (14) ◽  
pp. 5234
Author(s):  
Marijke Keus Van De Poll ◽  
Gunnar Bergström ◽  
Irene Jensen ◽  
Lotta Nybergh ◽  
Lydia Kwak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Sickness Absence ◽  
Common Mental Disorders ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Production Loss ◽  
The Cost

The cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of a work-directed intervention implemented by the occupational health service (OHS) for employees with common mental disorders (CMD) or stress related problems at work were investigated. The economic evaluation was conducted in a two-armed clustered RCT. Employees received either a problem-solving based intervention (PSI; n = 41) or care as usual (CAU; n = 59). Both were work-directed interventions. Data regarding sickness absence and production loss at work was gathered during a one-year follow-up. Bootstrap techniques were used to conduct a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) from both an employer and societal perspective. Intervention costs were lower for PSI than CAU. Costs for long-term sickness absence were higher for CAU, whereas costs for short-term sickness absence and production loss at work were higher for PSI. Mainly due to these costs, PSI was not cost-effective from the employer’s perspective. However, PSI was cost-beneficial from a societal perspective. CEA showed that a one-day reduction of long-term sickness absence costed on average €101 for PSI, a cost that primarily was borne by the employer. PSI reduced the socio-economic burden compared to CAU and could be recommended to policy makers. However, reduced long-term sickness absence, i.e., increased work attendance, was accompanied by employees perceiving higher levels of production loss at work and thus increased the cost for employers. This partly explains why an effective intervention was not cost-effective from the employer’s perspective. Hence, additional adjustments and/or support at the workplace might be needed for reducing the loss of production at work.

scholarly journals The unpopularity of incentive-based instruments: what improves the cost–benefit ratio?

Public Choice ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 175 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 37-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Stadelmann-Steffen ◽  
Clau Dermont
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document