scholarly journals Acquisition of a Dose Management System with Consideration of Medico-Legal and Economic Aspects

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thuy Duong Do ◽  
Claudius Melzig ◽  
Hans-Ulrich Kauczor ◽  
Marc-André Weber ◽  
Mark Oliver Wielpütz
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Actual Condition ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Dose Management

Background New radiation protection regulation encompassing additional obligations for monitoring, reporting and recording of radiation exposure, was enacted on December 31, 2018. As a consequence, dose management systems (DMS) are necessary to fulfill the requirements. The process of selection, acquisition and implementation of a suitable IT solution for this purpose is a challenge that all X-ray-applying facilities, including hospitals and private practices, are currently facing. Method A target/actual-analysis as well as a cost-utility analysis is presented for this specific case as a foundation for the acquisition decision-making process. Result An actual analysis is necessary in order to record the current status of dose documentation. An interdivisional approach is recommended to include all imaging modalities and devices. An interdisciplinary steering committee can be helpful in enabling consensus and rapid action. A target analysis includes additional criteria with respect to ease of operation, technical feasibility, process optimization and research opportunities to consider in addition to the statutory requirements. By means of a cost-benefit analysis, considerations between costs and the individually weighted advantages and disadvantages of eligible DMS result in a ranking of preference for the available solutions. Conclusion Requirements of a DMS can be summarized in a specification sheet. Deploying an actual condition analysis, target state analysis and cost-utility analysis can help to identify a suitable DMS to achieve rapid commissioning and highest possible user acceptance while optimizing costs at the same time. Key Points: Citation Format

scholarly journals The study of Pharmacoeconomics analysis on anti tuberculosis drugs Rifampicin & Ethambutol

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-40
Author(s):  
Arsalan Sarmad ◽  
B. Syed Salman ◽  
Syed Sharfuddin Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Minimum Cost ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Effective Therapy ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis

Cost-benefit analysis can be used to quantify the value of clinical pharmacy services. Providing Effective Therapy and Minimum cost, Quantify costs of care, Quantify outcomes, Assess whether and by how much average costs and outcomes differ among treatment groups, Compare magnitude of difference in costs and outcomes and evaluate “value for costs” by reporting a cost-effectiveness ratio, net monetary benefit, or probability that ratio is acceptable – Potential hypothesis: Cost per quality-adjusted life year saved significantly less than Rs.75,000, To Perform sensitivity analysis. For providing good effective therapy with less adverse drug reaction at affordable price, Cost-Identification, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Cost-Utility Analysis, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Clinical outcomes: Cure, comfort and survival, Humanistic outcomes: Physical, emotional, social function, role performance, Economic outcomes, Economic Evaluation, Cost of Illness Evaluation (COI), Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), Cost Minimization Analysis, Cost Effective Analysis: Cost Utility Analysis.

scholarly journals Economic Evaluations in the Canadian Mental Health System I: Theory behind Economic Evaluation*

1989 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 633-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce J. Fried ◽  
Catherine Worthington ◽  
Raisa B. Deber
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Health Program ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Mental Health Programs

Economic evaluation is becoming an increasingly important part of the evaluation of health and mental health services. Current models for conducting economic evaluation, including cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-utility analysis, have great potential for improving the quality of decision-making and for making mental health programs more effective and efficient. This paper presents the basic economic theory underlying the various forms of economic evaluation and provides general guidelines for developing and conducting an economic analysis of a health program.

Economic Evaluation of New Drugs

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart O. Schweitzer ◽  
Z. John Lu
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Uk

As a result of new cost-containment incentives found in both public and private healthcare plans, providers and insurers are subjecting new healthcare services, and especially pharmaceuticals, to evaluations in which costs and benefits are explicitly compared. Collectively, this body of work is referred to as health technology assessment. This chapter discusses in detail the three methodologies most frequently utilized in HTA: cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-utility analysis. The appropriate roles for each of these approaches and examples of their applications in several influential HTA organizations around the world are elaborated, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia, and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. The history and current state of HTA in the United States is also examined in the chapter.

Cost–Benefit and Cost–Utility Analysis of Amphotericin B Supplementation of Corneal Storage Media With Endothelial Keratoplasty-Prepared Tissue

Cornea ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 422-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trent Tsun-Kang Chiang ◽  
Roni M. Shtein ◽  
Kristen McCoy ◽  
Susan Hurlbert ◽  
Gregory H. Grossman
Keyword(s):  
Amphotericin B ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Endothelial Keratoplasty ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Storage Media ◽  
Corneal Storage

Cost–consequence analysis of public health interventions

2019 ◽  
pp. 233-247
Author(s):  
Ned Hartfiel ◽  
Rhiannon T. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Public Health Interventions ◽  
Consequence Analysis ◽  
Cost Consequence

This chapter opens with a discussion around cost–consequence analysis (CCA) and the UK’s NICE recommendation to use CCA in addition to cost–utility analysis for evaluating public health interventions. CCA is sometimes referred to as a disaggregated approach, because the benefits and costs are not combined in a single ratio such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost–utility analysis. CCA provides a clear descriptive summary for decision-makers that is often easier to interpret than cost-effectiveness, cost–utility, and cost–benefit analysis. The reader or the decision-maker has to form their own opinion concerning the relative importance of costs and outcomes. The chapter offers a case study of CCA by comparing a yoga-based intervention with self-care for managing musculoskeletal conditions in the workplace. The chapter ends with a summary of the principle benefits and major drawbacks of CCA.

Economic evaluation and priority setting: an overview

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Abel Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Evaluation Techniques

This chapter provides an overview of the methodologies that come under the umbrella term of economic evaluation in healthcare. Economic evaluations seek to identify, measure, value, and compare alternative programmes. A taxonomy is developed to distinguish economic evaluation techniques depending on whether benefits have been measured in money terms or not, and whether benefits are based on preferences or not. When benefits are measured in money terms, it is referred to as a cost–benefit analysis (CBA). If benefits are measured in health terms, some sort of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is being used. An important class of CEA is what has come to be labelled ‘cost-utility-analysis’ (CUA). The chapter explains the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and illustrates the cost-effectiveness plane. Finally, the idea of discounting health is discussed.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Chemotherapy Using Paclitaxel, Docetaxel, or Vinorelbine for Patients With Anthracycline-Resistant Breast Cancer

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 3082-3090 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. P. Leung ◽  
I. F. Tannock ◽  
A. M. Oza ◽  
A. Puodziunas ◽  
G. Dranitsaris
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel, docetaxel, and vinorelbine have been approved for chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer that is resistant to anthracyclines. Selecting which agent to use is difficult because each possesses advantages and disadvantages related to clinical response, toxicity, method of administration, and cost. A cost-utility analysis was therefore performed to create a rank order on the basis of effectiveness, quality of life, and economic considerations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight anthracycline-resistant breast cancer patients who had received paclitaxel (n = 34), docetaxel (n = 29), or vinorelbine (n = 25) during the past 2 years were identified. Total resource consumption was collected, which included expenditures for chemotherapy, supportive care, laboratory tests, management of adverse effects, and all related physician fees. Utilities from 25 oncology care providers and 25 breast cancer patients were estimated using the time trade-off technique. The economic estimates from the chart review and clinical data from the literature were then modeled using the principles of decision analysis. RESULTS: Each of the three drugs led to a similar duration of quality-adjusted progression-free survival (paclitaxel, 37.2 days; docetaxel, 33.6 days; vinorelbine, 38.0 days). Vinorelbine was the least costly strategy, with an overall treatment expenditure of Can $3,259 per patient, compared with Can $6,039 and Can $10,090 for paclitaxel and docetaxel, respectively. CONCLUSION: Palliative chemotherapy with vinorelbine in anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer patients has economic advantages over the taxanes and provides at least equivalent quality-adjusted progression-free survival. These benefits are largely related to its lower drug acquisition cost and better toxicity profile.

Cost-utility in CNS drug trials

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-164
Author(s):  
F Ziegler
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Standard Gamble ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Drug Trials ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Theoretical Level ◽  
Health States

SummaryThis paper considers some of the theoretical and practical problems of conducting cost-utility analyses alongside clinical trials. In order to measure utilities of different health states in a clinical trial a number of critical assumptions have to be made. Some of these assumptions are questionable on a theoretical level, others empirically invalid. The practical problems of measuring utilities are discussed. The standard gamble is shown to be the most validated method of utility measurement, but still based on very strong assumptions. The standard gamble instrument is also costly and difficult to administer in clinical trials. Other instruments are found to be less valid than the standard gamble. It is concluded that although cost-utility analysis seems relevant in some instances, investigators should avoid this assessment of utility and instead measure cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and quality of life.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document