scholarly journals Sugammadex: The Right Option for the Efficiency of the Operating Room? A Methodology for Cost / Benefit Analysis in Comparison to the Routine Choice for Reversal

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A732 ◽  
Author(s):  
GL Ronco
2020 ◽  
Vol 185 (9-10) ◽  
pp. e1686-e1692
Author(s):  
Aaron D Fielden ◽  
Jacqueline M Braden ◽  
Daniel Brooks ◽  
Susan G Dunlow ◽  
Ernest G Lockrow ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Office hysteroscopy has become a cornerstone of modern gynecologic care through the advent of advanced technology and emphasis on an efficient healthcare system. In 2017, Medicare announced an increase in office hysteroscopy reimbursement by 237%, giving an incentive for gynecologists to move from the operating room into the clinic. The U.S. military medical system needs more cost-effective and efficient healthcare, given that the cost of military healthcare increased by 130% between 2000 and 2012 (accounting for 10% or $52 billion of the Department of Defense budget). Within our institution, we have moved to conducting a regularly scheduled outpatient hysteroscopy clinic. Increased healthcare costs, decreased available operating room time, and efforts to boost patient and provider satisfaction drove the change. Materials and Methods After institutional review board approval, we performed a retrospective observational cost-benefit analysis of 235 outpatient and 45 inpatient records that included female military healthcare beneficiaries age 18 or older who had diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy performed in the operating room or office setting from January 2015 to October 2018. We specifically focused on diagnostic hysteroscopy, hysteroscopic biopsy and polypectomy, and hysteroscopic foreign body removal (intrauterine device removal). We then compared admission time, procedure time, reimbursement, and cost for each of the hysteroscopic procedure groups to yield a total cost-benefit value (TCBV). TCBV was defined as cost savings plus difference in reimbursement rate. Results This study analyzes the costs and benefits of a regularly scheduled hysteroscopy clinic within the U.S. military medical system. We performed a cost-benefit analysis that indicated a substantial difference between clinic and operating room TCBV, total relative value units or reimbursement rates, and total patient care time. We found the average admission time for an inpatient procedure was 6.23 hours compared to our standard 1-hour clinic time. The average success rate for procedure completion in the clinic was 89%. We found the average TCBV for 100 patients (after 11% reoperation rate) to be as high as $64,220, $159,940, and $66,709 for diagnostic hysteroscopy, hysteroscopic biopsy and polypectomy, and hysteroscopic foreign body (intrauterine device) removal, respectively. Conclusions Compared to traditional operating room hysteroscopy, we were able to demonstrate reduced costs with increased reimbursement while performing the same scope of care for patients undergoing office hysteroscopy. Decreased total time in performing office hysteroscopy suggests the potential benefit of increased patient and provider satisfaction. Our study indicated substantial incentive for military gynecologists to incorporate office hysteroscopy into their practice given the increased relative value units generated. Our office hysteroscopy protocol is discussed to encourage other military facilities to follow in our footsteps.


Water Policy ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank A. Ward

This paper reviews recent developments in cost–benefit analysis for water policy researchers who wish to understand the applications of economic principles to inform emerging water policy debates. The cost–benefit framework can provide a comparison of total economic gains and losses resulting from a proposed water policy. Cost–benefit analysis can provide decision-makers with a comparison of the impacts of two or more water policy options using methods that are grounded in time-tested economic principles. Economic efficiency, measured as the difference between added benefits and added costs, can inform water managers and the public of the economic impacts of water programs to address peace, development, health, the environment, climate and poverty. Faced by limited resources, cost–benefit analysis can inform policy choices by summarizing trade-offs involved in designing, applying, or reviewing a wide range of water programs. The data required to conduct a cost–benefit analysis are often poor but the steps needed to carry out that analysis require posing the right questions.


Daedalus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 150 (3) ◽  
pp. 208-219
Author(s):  
Cass R. Sunstein

Abstract The American administrative state has become a cost-benefit state, at least in the sense that prevailing executive orders require agencies to proceed only if the benefits justify the costs. Some people celebrate this development; others abhor it. For defenders of the cost-benefit state, the antonym of their ideal is, alternately, regulation based on dogmas, intuitions, pure expressivism, political preferences, or interest-group power. Seen most sympathetically, the focus on costs and benefits is a neo-Benthamite effort to attend to the real-world consequences of regulations, and it casts a pragmatic, skeptical light on modern objections to the administrative state, invoking public-choice theory and the supposedly self-serving decisions of unelected bureaucrats. The focus on costs and benefits is also a valuable effort to go beyond coarse arguments, from both the right and the left, that tend to ask this unhelpful question: “Which side are you on?” In the future, however, there will be much better ways, which we might consider neo-Millian, to identify those consequences: 1) by relying less on speculative ex ante projections and more on actual evaluations; 2) by focusing directly on welfare and not relying on imperfect proxies; and 3) by attending closely to distributional considerations–on who is helped and who is hurt.


1979 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-185
Author(s):  
Clive Bell ◽  
Siiantayanan Devarajan

An investment project has effects on the incomes of households, firms and government , not only directly through the value added produced by the project it9Cif, but also by inducing additional output through inter-industry linkages and expenditures out of the extra incomes accruing to its beneficiaries. The latter, sometimes called the "multiplier" or "downstream" effects of a project , have been discussed in some of the recent literature on social cost benefit analysis [6, II]. These contributions have been concerned with the "multiplier" or "downstream" effects of projects, and with the derivation of shadow prices which capture all such effects in full. If these shadow prices are correctly calculated, so it is asserted, then valuing a project 's direct inputs and outputs at these prices yields the right measure of its social profitability . This approach is in the spirit of, and consistent with , that of the various manuals on social cost• benefit analysis [9. 13, 16] .


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (12) ◽  
pp. 1318-1323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Gormley ◽  
Troy A. Markel ◽  
Howard Jones ◽  
Damon Greeley ◽  
John Ostojic ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Salman Ahmed ◽  
H. Onan Demirel

Abstract A knowledge-base that integrates human factor engineering (HFE) principles and prototyping best-practices for the design of human-centered products does not exist. This study fills this gap by proposing a prototyping framework to unify HFE principles and prototyping guidelines along with a prototyping toolbox. The framework is based on the House of Prototype Guidelines (HOPG), which introduces “Prototyping Categories and Dimensions” that are used for understanding the prototyping requirements and identifying the specifications that can be used to build a prototype. Additionally, a prototyping toolbox is introduced to classify tools and technologies to build the proposed prototype. The HOPG and prototyping toolbox are integrated via an MS Excel User-form, which proposes a systematic selection filter based on user input. The overall goal of this framework is to guide the prototyping activities in the right direction before the actual hands-on prototyping activity starts. Additionally, in this study, a cost-benefit analysis tool is proposed to calculate the value of the prototype by measuring the information gained and the resources spent. The cost-benefit analysis helps designers in narrowing down the prototyping options. A prototyping problem taken from the literature is used as a case study to demonstrate the usability and efficacy of the framework.


Author(s):  
James Broughel

The conventional wisdom has it that US Democrats and those on the American left support incremental steps in the direction of socialism, if not an all-out endorsement of the concept. However, in at least one area—regulation—Republicans and the American political right have also, albeit unwittingly, spread the seeds of socialism not just in Washington, DC, but all across the world. This article reviews the history of federal regulation in the United States, and in particular the arcane, technical history of cost-benefit analysis (CBA), a tool that has become increasingly central in battles over regulation between the Left and the Right. Although right-wing political operatives latched on to CBA in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the tool has a long, complicated history, aspects of which could even be called socialist in nature.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document