scholarly journals ‘What You See is All There is’: The Importance of Heuristics in Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) in the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions

Author(s):  
Rhiannon Tudor Edwards ◽  
Catherine Louise Lawrence
Author(s):  
Emma McIntosh ◽  
Camilla Baba ◽  
Willings Botha

Chapter 9 introduces the reader to the stages of cost–benefit analysis (CBA) as specifically applied to public health intervention economic evaluation. The specific focus of this chapter follows on from the messages of Chapter 6 on the relevance of, and methods for, quantifying the ‘outcomes’ of public health interventions in monetary form for CBA. Two case studies focus on the use of stated preference discrete choice experiment (SPDCE) methodology for valuation of multi-attribute benefits comprising health, non-health, and process outcomes of the type likely to occur in PHIs.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 32-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kuda Muyambi ◽  
Bruce Gurd ◽  
Lee Martinez ◽  
May Walker-Jeffreys ◽  
Kari Vallury ◽  
...  

Social return on investment (SROI) is an approach built on cost benefit analysis and is used in the evaluation of projects with social benefits, as an alternative to cost benefit analysis and theory-based evaluation. This paper provides an analysis of SROI as an evaluation tool compared to theory-based evaluation, based on an evaluation of a community based mental health rehabilitation program in regional South Australia. The paper describes the process of constructing a SROI impact map and identifies the issues at each stage. Establishing the resources used, the activities and the outputs appears relatively straightforward. Arriving at an agreed theory of change is much more contested, even when using a high level of involvement of the service beneficiaries. The single greatest difficulty is to find the indicators and the financial proxies to value the outcomes. Outcomes such as improved wellbeing are difficult to value. It is particularly difficult to establish the level of outcomes immediately after or during an intervention. The paper concludes with an analysis of landscapes where SROI is unlikely to fit.


2020 ◽  
pp. 107-118
Author(s):  
Michael A. Livermore ◽  
Richard L. Revesz

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.


Pained ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 99-102
Author(s):  
Michael D. Stein ◽  
Sandro Galea

This chapter looks at how the country’s health investment remains resolutely focused on curative care. Perhaps people spend more on cure than they do on prevention because they believe keeping people healthy is too expensive. But is this true? An analysis set out to assess the return on investment for high-income countries that adopt efforts to improve health. The authors found that the median return on investment for public health interventions was 14 to 1—that is, for every dollar invested, it yields the same dollar back and another 14. They also found that the more these interventions were established at the wider, national level, the higher the return, rising up to about 40 to 1 for the best investments. These interventions include vaccination programs, taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, building better cities to reduce falls, and early youth interventions to limit teenage pregnancy and delinquency. In other words, these are classic efforts to promote the public’s health by shaping the conditions in which people live.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 344-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benoit Stryckman ◽  
Thomas L. Grace ◽  
Peter Schwarz ◽  
David Marcozzi

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)


2016 ◽  
Vol 70 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A96.2-A96
Author(s):  
R Mason ◽  
E Anwar ◽  
B Collins ◽  
R Cookson ◽  
S Capewell ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document