Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Michael A. Livermore ◽  
Richard L. Revesz
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Ronald Reagan ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Trade Associations ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us

In a 1981 Executive Order, President Ronald Reagan placed cost-benefit analysis at the heart of the US regulatory system. In the following decades, many progressives opposed cost-benefit analysis, arguing that it was a tool to undermine protections for consumers, public health, and the environment. Notwithstanding this resistance within their own party, Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama embraced cost-benefit analysis and showed how the technique could be used while implementing a protection-oriented regulatory agenda. As Democratic constituencies became more comfortable with cost-benefit analysis, conservatives and industry trade associations became more skeptical. This trend ultimately culminated in the Trump administration’s rejection of expertise, analysis, and evidence and its open manipulation of cost-benefit analysis to obscure the true effects of an overzealous deregulatory agenda that is often at odds with the public interest.

scholarly journals Defining the Public Interest in Relation to the Accountancy Profession: Some Perspectives

2013 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-68
Author(s):  
Alexandra Ardelean
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Complex Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Democratic Principles

Abstract Confidence in accounting is conditional to justifying the legitimacy of the accountancy profession. To reinforce this confidence, IFAC issued a framework whose applicability is proposed to be verified through three criteria: a cost benefit analysis, adherence to democratic principles and processes, as well as the respect of cultural and ethical diversity. Hereby we analyzed the comments issued and found out that the complexity of the public interest notion makes it difficult to define, given its international reach. However, such a framework constitutes a step further to reinforcing the public's confidence. We conducted a complex analysis and pointed out the relevant aspects regarding the axiom of public interest, arguing that the commitment to society is the highest responsibility of the profession. As a conclusion, since accountants have a responsibility to protect the public interest while striving to progress with the interests of the profession, a concession between the two is indispensable.

scholarly journals Cost-Benefit Analysis and Public Sector Trust

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward H. Stiglitz
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Analytical Procedure ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Welfare Cost ◽  
Trust Building ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
The Public

Eighty percent of Americans believe that government is run for “a few big interests” rather than the public interest. Rooted in notions of social welfare, cost-benefit analysis might be seen as an analytical procedure to flush out and discourage at least the most egregious abuses in lawmaking authority, thereby encouraging citizens to view their government as essentially pursuing some plausible notion of the public interest. Yet the extent to which cost-benefit analysis might fill this trust-building role is an unaddressed issue. Here, I conduct an experiment based on a (de)regulatory action in the environmental context to examine whether cost-benefit analysis might yield trust dividends. I find that cost-benefit analysis produces large increases in public sector trust, but only when paired with reasonableness review, and only among “elites.” This pattern of findings suggests that, without more, an agency declaration of cost justification is not credible, but that it may be made so through a form of reasonableness review. I discuss the contours of such review, and highlight perils if review is overly aggressive.

Precaution, Proportionality, and Cost/Benefit Analysis: False Analogies

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Rose–Ackerman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Proportionality Principle

The Politics of Precaution by David Vogel, and the edited volume, The Reality of Precaution each compare the United States with Europe over a range of regulatory areas. Vogel claims that the US and Europe changed places in recent years with Europe becoming more precautionary than the US. The edited volume covers a wider range of topics and finds that the results are mixed. The evidence of diversity in the edited volume appears convincing, but this essay argues that both volumes too narrowly focus on the precautionary principle. Rather it argues for a broader context that confronts precaution both with the proportionality principle, which is a mainstay of European Union law, and with the limitations of cost/benefit analysis and Impact Assessment. It unpacks the normative underpinnings of these concepts to suggest a broader frame for policy analysis.

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.

Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis to the Health Services and the Special Case of Technologic Innovation

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert E. Klarman
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
The Public ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

As an economic technique for evaluating specific projects or programs in the public sector, cost-benefit analysis is relatively new. In this paper, the theory and practice of cost-benefit analysis in general are discussed as a basis for considering its role in assessing technology in the health services. A review of the literature on applications of cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis to the health field reveals that few complete studies have been conducted to date. It is suggested that an adequate analysis requires an empirical approach in which costs and benefits are juxtaposed, and in which presumed benefits reflect an ascertained relationship between inputs and outputs. A threefold classification of benefits is commonly employed: direct, indirect, and intangible. Since the latter pose difficulty, cost-effectiveness analysis is often the more practicable procedure. After summarizing some problems in predicting how technologic developments are likely to affect costs and benefits, the method of cost-benefit analysis is applied to developments of health systems technology in two settings-the hospital and automated multiphasic screening. These examples underscore the importance of solving problems of measurement and valuation of a project or program in its concrete setting. Finally, barriers to the performance of sound and systematic analysis are listed, and the political context of decision making in the public sector is emphasized.

Cost-Benefit Analysis as an Expression of Liberal Neutrality

2020 ◽  
pp. 187-253
Author(s):  
Joseph Heath
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Policy Evaluation ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Public Philosophy ◽  
Steady Creep ◽  
Liberal Neutrality ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Past

The past few decades have seen an expansion in the use of cost-benefit analysis as a tool for policy evaluation in the public sector. This slow, steady creep has been a source of consternation to many philosophers and political theorists, who are inclined to view cost-benefit analysis as simply a variant of utilitarianism and consider utilitarianism to be completely unacceptable as a public philosophy. The chapter shows that this impression is misleading. When construed narrowly, cost-benefit analysis does look a lot like utilitarianism. However, when it is seen in its broader context, in the way that it is applied, and the types of problem to which it is applied, it is better understood as an attempt by the state to avoid taking sides with respect to various controversial conceptions of the good.

scholarly journals Ethical Review in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Heo
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Automotive Industry ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Intelligent Machines ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
The Subject

Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning, has made significant strides in the past decade. Due to the widely applicable nature of this technology, the emergence of increasingly intelligent machines is poised to transform today’s society. Recently, the rate of AI development has aroused significant concerns due to the lack of guiding policy and regulation. Thus, it is integral for the public to recognize the technology and make informed choices regarding the future of AI. This paper serves to acquaint the layperson and other stakeholders involved in AI development with the current progress of AI and the ethical concerns that must be addressed before significant advancements. The subject of discussion is narrowed down to three fields of AI’s most prominent use: (1) the internet; (2) the automotive industry; and (3) the healthcare industry. For each sector, the foundation of the domain-specific AI technique is introduced, the benefits and ethical ramifications are discussed, and a final cost-benefit analysis is provided.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document