scholarly journals Counting the Costs of Acquisitions: Using Cost-Benefit Analysis in a Seminary and University Library

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 24-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Verena Getahun ◽  
William A. Keillor
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Time Costs ◽  
University Library

This essay considers how cost-benefit analysis may be used in a small to mid-sized library to identify cost-savings in the acquisitions of monographs. The essay highlights parallel studies conducted at Luther Seminary Library and Bethel University Library which compared prices, discounts, and time costs across a range of vendor types to identify whether searching for the best price per item is cost-effective, and how much this strategy could save yearly in acquisitions. Both libraries found that substantial potential savings were identified through this study.

Cost-effective upgrading of the Arnsberg WWTP by post denitrification with a moving bed system

2000 ◽  
Vol 41 (9) ◽  
pp. 123-130
Author(s):  
N. Jardin ◽  
L. Rath ◽  
A. Sabin ◽  
F. Schmitt ◽  
D. Thöle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Source ◽  
Biological Process ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Moving Bed ◽  
Trickling Filters ◽  
Sludge Hydrolysis ◽  
Effective Integration

On the basis of a cost-benefit analysis it was decided to expand the Arnsberg WWTP by a multistage biological process which allows for cost-effective integration of the existing facilities. Carbon removal will then be accomplished in a high-loaded activated sludge stage for which the existing primary clarifier is to be reconstructed. The existing trickling filters will be used for nitrification during a midterm period and will be replaced later on either by a moving bed system or by new trickling filters. Line 3 of the existing secondary clarifiers will be reconstructed and used for post denitrification in a moving bed system. The carbon needed for denitrification will be provided by means of sludge hydrolysis and the use of an external carbon source.

Medical readiness: evaluating the robustness of medical clinic staffing solutions

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-419
Author(s):  
Michael Q Corpuz ◽  
Christina F Rusnock ◽  
Vhance V Valencia ◽  
Kyle Oyama
Keyword(s):  
Negative Impact ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Discrete Event ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Wait Time ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Wait Times ◽  
Staffing Mix

Medical readiness requires Department of Defense medical clinics to be robust to changes in patient demand. Minor fluctuations in patient demand occur on a regular basis, but major increases can also occur. Major demand increases can result from a number of occurrences, including mass military deployments, medical incidents, outbreaks, and overflow from Veterans’ Affairs clinics. This research evaluates a system of clinics at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in order to determine its ability to handle a 200% surge in patient demand. In addition, this study evaluates the relative effectiveness of six different staffing mix options to minimize patient wait times, also under the surge demand conditions. This evaluation is conducted using discrete-event simulation to estimate patient wait times and includes a sensitivity analysis of the increased patient demand, as well as a cost–benefit analysis to determine the most cost-effective alternative scenario. The study finds that adjustments to staffing mix enable cost savings while meeting current demands. In addition, the study finds that adjusting the staffing mix will not have a negative impact on patient wait time in the surge conditions, relative to the current staffing mix.

scholarly journals Cost–effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of oliceridine in the treatment of acute pain

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kit N Simpson ◽  
Michael J Fossler ◽  
Linda Wase ◽  
Mark A Demitrack
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Opioid Receptor Agonist ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
Μ Opioid Receptor ◽  
The Cost

Aim: Oliceridine, a new class of μ-opioid receptor agonist, is selective for G-protein signaling (analgesia) with limited recruitment of β-arrestin (associated with adverse outcomes) and may provide a cost-effective alternative versus conventional opioid morphine for postoperative pain. Patients & methods: Using a decision tree with a 24-h time horizon, we calculated costs for medication and management of three most common adverse events (AEs; oxygen saturation <90%, vomiting and somnolence) following postoperative oliceridine or morphine use. Results: Using oliceridine, the cost for managing AEs was US$528,424 versus $852,429 for morphine, with a net cost savings of $324,005. Conclusion: Oliceridine has a favorable overall impact on the total cost of postoperative care compared with the use of the conventional opioid morphine.

The Illusion of Costs without Benefits

2020 ◽  
pp. 107-118
Author(s):  
Michael A. Livermore ◽  
Richard L. Revesz
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Executive Order ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Compliance Costs ◽  
The Core ◽  
Trump Administration

The core of the Trump administration’s regulatory agenda is to focus on the costs of regulations while ignoring, trivializing, and mischaracterizing their benefits. The administration has made significant regulatory efforts to delay or repeal important initiatives of the Obama administration designed to protect public health and the environment. In some of these proceedings, the Trump administration has altogether ignored the benefits of the rules it seeks to eliminate or suspend, instead focusing solely on cost savings to regulated industry. For example, Trump’s Executive Order 13,771 directs agencies to control costs and eliminate two regulations for every new one. This one-sided approach makes a mockery of cost-benefit analysis. Saving regulatory costs is attractive only if the benefits forgone as a result of these savings are lower than those costs. A rule that reduces compliance costs by giving up an even larger set of social benefits is hardly an attractive proposition.

Cost Benefit Analysis Of a Sickle Cell Infusion Center For The Treatment Of Vaso-Occlusive Crises

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1697-1697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meera Chappidi ◽  
Y. Natalia Alfonso ◽  
David Bishai ◽  
Sophie Lanzkron
Keyword(s):  
Sickle Cell ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Inpatient Hospitalization ◽  
Ed Visits

Abstract Introduction The most common reason for acute care utilization for individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD) is Vaso-Occlusive crisis (VOC). Patients typically seek out care through the emergency department (ED) At these locations patients often have long waits to get care and often receive sub optimal pain management, which Results in over 40% of patients requiring hospital admission. Johns Hopkins Hospital has implemented a new model of service for people with SCD; an outpatient Sickle Cell Infusion Clinic (SCIC) that was opened in 2008 as an alternative source of urgent care for patients having VOC. The purpose of this study is to determine the net financial benefit of implementing the sickle cell infusion clinic model. Methods A cost-benefit analysis is conducted from the payer’s perspective focusing on direct medical cost (procedures, drugs, tests, etc.) of SCD patients and excludes indirect medical costs (patients’ productive changes). Health care costs and utilization data was available for the last 3 out of 5 years that the SCIC was opened. A literature review was conducted to determine the costs of individual components of the total costs for SCD patients: inpatient hospitalization, ED visit, primary care and secondary care visits, and other healthcare costs for patients with SCD. The overall and average visit cost of the SCIC was determined from the 2012-2013 budget and visits. The billing data for a subset of patients seen in the SCIC that were insured by one of the Medicaid’s MCO was used to determine utilization and costs of healthcare services for 2010, 2011, and 2012. The baseline utilization of healthcare services before the SCIC was implemented was estimated from the literature. As we did not have baseline data we estimated that the 2010 utilization of healthcare services reflected a 20% decrease in hospitalizations and a 40% decrease in ED visits. The overall cost of care for patients with SCD was determined from the above-mentioned sample of billing claims data and utilization estimates. The costs of running the SCIC was added to the overall costs of care. Finally, net savings for the SCIC was determined by calculating the difference in overall cost and savings per beneficiary per month (PBPM). All values are reported in 2012 inflation-adjusted dollars. Results For the subset of patients covered by the Medicaid MCO, the SCIC model resulted in a 7.6% ($676 PBPM) cost savings in the first year (estimated baseline compared to 2010) with savings of 29.2% ($2598 PBPM) when comparing estimated baseline to 2012. The total medical costs for the subset of patients using the SCIC in 2010 was $3,492,339 with an average cost of $94,388 per patient. The SCIC had 1,428 visits by 246 unique patients in FY2012 with an average cost per visit of $434 or $203 PBPM. Other costs in this patient population include: inpatient hospitalization ($3,985 PBPM), ED visits ($326 PBPM), primary and secondary care visits ($26 PBPM), and pharmacy ($493 PBPM). The total cost of care for the same number of sickle cell patients as in our sample who did not utilize the SCIC would have been $3,779,588, with an average cost of $102,151per patient. The SCIC model resulted in cost savings primarily due to a decrease in hospitalizations and ED visits. The number of hospitalization decreased 52.0% (2.88 HPY) and the number of ED visits decreased 48.4% (2.32 visits VPY) in the fifth year of operating the infusion clinic model (2012). The average cost of a hospitalization and an ED visit was $10,797 and $1,024 respectively. These values did not change with the implementation of the SCIC. If we extrapolate the cost savings seen in the subset of patients using the more conservative 7.6% cost savings, to the entire patient cohort this would result in a cost savings of $1.9 million. Discussion Preliminary cost-benefit analysis shows that the SCIC model resulted in significant cost savings that increased significantly in successive years. Cost savings was driven by two major factors: 1) decrease in inpatient hospitalizations and 2) decrease in ED visits. Additional analysis to include actual baseline data is planned along with a sensitivity analysis to identify if there is a certain threshold population density for which this model would be most cost effective. Disclosures: Lanzkron: GlycoMimetics, Inc.: Research Funding.

Cost-benefit analysis of AR-V7 testing in patients (Pts) with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) eligible for abiraterone (Abi) or enzalutamide (Enza).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 283-283
Author(s):  
Mark Christopher Markowski ◽  
Kevin D. Frick ◽  
James R. Eshleman ◽  
Jun Luo ◽  
Emmanuel S. Antonarakis
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
The Us ◽  
Effective Option ◽  
Current Price ◽  
Societal Challenge ◽  
The Cost

283 Background: The rising cost of oncology care in the US is an ongoing societal challenge, and identifying biomarkers that inform clinical decisions and reduce the use of ineffective therapies remains elusive. A splice variant of the androgen receptor, AR-V7, was found to confer resistance to Abi and Enza in men with mCRPC, but did not negatively affect responses to taxanes, suggesting that early use of chemotherapy may be a more effective option for AR-V7(+) pts. With the recent development of a CLIA-certified clinical assay for AR-V7 at Johns Hopkins, we hypothesized that AR-V7 testing in mCRPC pts may result in cost savings by avoiding futile treatment with Abi/Enza in men with AR-V7(+) disease. Methods: We calculated the cost savings of performing AR-V7 testing in mCRPC pts prior to starting Abi/Enza (and avoiding these drugs in AR-V7(+) men) versus treating all mCRPC pts with Abi/Enza (without use of the biomarker). We have set the cost of the AR-V7 assay at $1000. The cost of 3 months of Abi/Enza (the minimum time it would take to determine resistance, clinically) was approximated at $20,000. We estimated that 30,000 mCRPC pts per year are eligible for Abi/Enza in the US. Results: In our prior studies, about 30% of mCRPC pts previously treated with Abi/Enza had detectable AR-V7 in CTCs. Assuming an AR-V7 prevalence of 30%, about 9,000 AR-V7(+) mCRPC pts per year would receive ineffective treatment with Abi/Enza, at an estimated cost of $180 Million. The upfront cost of testing all mCRPC pts who are Abi/Enza-eligible for AR-V7 is $30 Million, resulting in a net cost savings of $150 Million. When performing a continuous cost-benefit analysis after assuming other prevalences of AR-V7 (ranging from 4% to 50%) and a range of costs for Abi/Enza ($2000 to $24,000 per 3 months), we determined that AR-V7 testing would result in a cost savings as long as the prevalence of AR-V7 is > 5% (if the cost of 3 months of Abi/Enza remains at $20,000). Conclusions: AR-V7 testing in mCRPC pts (at $1000/test) is cost-beneficial when considering the current price of Abi/Enza, and may reduce the ineffective use of Abi/Enza leading to a net cost savings to the healthcare system.

Feasibility Study on Applying a Single Loop-Based Vehicle Detector

2013 ◽  
Vol 787 ◽  
pp. 471-477
Author(s):  
Kyung Won Park ◽  
Sung Han Lim
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Traffic Volume ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Single Loop ◽  
Vehicle Type ◽  
Traffic Data Collection ◽  
Economical Feasibility

This study is intended to evaluate the feasibility of introducing a single loop-based vehicle detector in preparation for installing the device for permanent traffic volume counts by segment. Existing AVC comprises two loop sensors and one piezo sensor which are costly for installation. Should the vehicle classifications be similar within the section, reliable traffic data collection would be possible using a single-loop alone, which needs to be evaluated. For this, traffic volume and vehicle classifications collected by two AVCs within a section were analyzed with cost-benefit analysis for analyzing the feasibility of applying a single loop-based vehicle detector . As a result of comparing and analyzing the vehicle type ratio in 36 sections where two AVCs are installed respectively, 90% of the total showed the error rate 15% or less, and according to T-test and correlation analysis result, no statistical significance between two locations in vehicle type ratio was found. According to economical feasibility analysis, B/C 12.19, NPV 474.0 bil and IRR 196%. Thus, collection of vehicle type ratio from one AVC in the section and installation of a singl loop-based vehicle detector in a single section would produce more efficient and cost effective count. Further study on cost and benefit through more intensive statistical analysis would be necessary in the coming days.

Preliminary Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) for Safety Assist Technologies in ASEAN NCAP – Rationalizing the Impact to Road Safety for Malaysia’s Case

2014 ◽  
Vol 663 ◽  
pp. 596-603
Author(s):  
Zulhaidi Mohd Jawi ◽  
Aqbal Hafeez Ariffin ◽  
Yahaya Ahmad ◽  
Khairil Anwar Abu Kassim ◽  
Norlen Mohamed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Road Safety ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost Ratio ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Rating Scheme

The newly established New Car Assessment Program for Southeast Asian Countries (ASEAN NCAP) has incorporated Safety Assist Technologies (SATs) in its automobile safety rating scheme. In order for any assessed car to be eligible for the maximum 5-star rating, it should first be equipped with Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and fitted with seatbelt reminder (SBR). However, since these SATs are not being evaluated in their performance by the means of field testing, this paper explains the benefit of having these SATs through Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) which help to rationalize the importance of SATs in preventing road accidents or mitigating severity of injuries. Due to data limitation, this preliminary CBA assessment will only be focusing on Malaysia’s situation and is based on published sources and the authors’ best estimates. This study also includes the Cost-Benefit Analysis on Anti-lock Braking System (ABS), which is the basis for ESC technology, in preparation for its inclusion in the future rating scheme to expedite the vision of making ABS as standard fit in all ASEAN’s passenger cars. The preliminary result shows that all technologies – ESC, SBR and ABS – appear to be cost-effective (benefit/cost-ratio > 3) or most likely cost effective (1 < benefit/cost-ratio < 3) in Malaysia’s road safety situation per se.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document