scholarly journals Why Some Firms Train Apprentices and Many Others Do Not

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan C. Wolter ◽  
Jürg Schweri ◽  
Samuel Mühlemann
Keyword(s):  
Labour Market ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Training System ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Apprenticeship Training ◽  
Effective Training ◽  
Market Situation ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

Abstract The latest study investigating the cost-benefit ratio of apprenticeship training for Swiss companies has shown that most apprentices offset the cost of their training during their apprenticeship on the basis of the productive contribution of the work they perform. Given this outcome, it is worth investigating why so many firms choose not to train apprentices. Maximum-likelihood selection models were used to estimate the net cost of training for firms without an apprenticeship programme. The models show, firstly, that non-training firms would incur significantly higher net cost during the apprenticeship period if they would switch to a training policy and, secondly, that this less favourable cost-benefit ratio is determined less by cost than by absence of benefit. For the apprenticeship system as such the results indicate that, as long as training regulations and the market situation permit a cost-effective training of apprentices, companies do not need specific labour market regulations or institutions to offer training posts. In this respect, the Swiss findings might be of interest for the ongoing German discussion about the expected repercussions of a more general labour market deregulation on the apprenticeship training system.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of a physician-nurse supplementary triage assessment team at an academic tertiary care emergency department

CJEM ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivy Cheng ◽  
Maaret Castren ◽  
Alex Kiss ◽  
Merrick Zwarenstein ◽  
Mats Brommels ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Additional Patient ◽  
Patient Volume ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of physician-nurse supplementary triage assistance team (MDRNSTAT) from a hospital and patient perspective.MethodsThis was a cost-effectiveness evaluation of a cluster randomized control trial comparing the MDRNSTAT with nurse-only triage in the emergency department (ED) between the hours of 0800 and 1500. Cost was MDRNSTAT salary. Revenue was from Ontario’s Pay-for-Results and patient volume-case mix payment programs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was based on MDRNSTAT cost and three consequence assessments: 1) per additional patient-seen; 2) per physician initial assessment (PIA) hour saved; and 3) per ED length of stay (EDLOS) hour saved. Patient opportunity cost was determined. Patient satisfaction was quantified by a cost-benefit ratio. A sensitivity analysis extrapolating MDRNSTAT to different working hours, salary, and willingness-to-pay data was performed.ResultsThe added cost of the MDRNSTAT was $3,597.27 [$1,729.47 to ∞] per additional patient-seen, $75.37 [$67.99 to $105.30] per PIA hour saved, and $112.99 [$74.68 to $251.43] per EDLOS hour saved. From the hospital perspective, the cost-benefit ratio was 38.6 [19.0 to ∞] and net present value of –$447,996 [–$435,646 to –$459,900]. For patients, the cost-benefit ratio for satisfaction was 2.8 [2.3 to 4.6]. If MDRNSTAT performance were consistently implemented from noon to midnight, it would be more cost-effective.ConclusionsThe MDRNSTAT is not a cost-effective daytime strategy but appears to be more feasible during time periods with higher patient volume, such as late morning to evening.

scholarly journals Estimation of cost-effectiveness of poplar wood production in poplar plantations in Ravni Srem based on the cost-benefit method

2011 ◽  
pp. 81-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Keca
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Discount Rate ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Wood Production ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
Poplar Plantations ◽  
Economic Analyses ◽  
The Cost

Cost-effectiveness of polar cultivation was analyzed based on one of the indicators for the assessment of agriculture and forestry projects - cost-benefit (r). Poplar plantations of the clone I-214 of different rotations and on different soil types were analyzed in the area of Ravni Srem. The aim of the study was to evaluate the justification of the invested financial means in wood production in poplar plantations, based on the analysis of costs and receipts at different plantation ages, using the cost-benefit method. It was found that in all 13 analyzed compartments, the average cost-benefit ratio was 0.36. This means that the costs at the discount rate of 12% are about 2.8 times higher than the receipts. Accordingly, it can be asserted that it is economically unjustified to invest in the projected stands, but only in the case when the value of social capital accounts for 12%. Based on the analysis of sensitivity of the cost-benefit method, it was concluded that cost benefit ratio for p=8-12% was below 1 within the study range of costs and receipts changes, while for p=4-6% this ratio was above 1 in some cases of decrease in costs, i.e. increase in receipts. It was noted that the change in r depending on the change in costs, developed by the exponential function, and the change in r depending on the change in receipts developed by the linear function. Also, it was concluded that at the lower discount rates, the values of r moved towards 1, so for 8% r=0.71, and for 6% r=0.94. The value at the discount rate of 4% indicates that the project is cost-effective and that the invested ? 1 makes ? 1.22. This fact is especially important when poplar cultivation projects are ranked. For this reason, this method is used for the evaluation of social benefits, i.e. for economic analyses. It is almost never applied in the analysis of private investments.

Home Visitation Investment

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-169
Author(s):  
NORMAN J. SISSMAN
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Home Visits ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Home Visitation ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Health Care Resources ◽  
Detailed Consideration ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
Women And Children ◽  
The Cost

To the Editor.— Two recent reviews in Pediatrics1,2 provide much interesting information on the effect of home visits on the health of women and children. However, I was disappointed not to find in either article more than token reference to the cost of the programs reviewed. In this day of increasingly scarce health care resources, we no longer have the luxury of evaluating programs such as these without detailed consideration of their cost-benefit ratio.

scholarly journals Ultrasound scan as a potential source of nosocomial and cross-infection: a literature review

2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 319-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Hadyme Miyague ◽  
Fernando Marum Mauad ◽  
Wellington de Paula Martins ◽  
Augusto César Garcia Benedetti ◽  
Ana Elizabeth Gomes de Melo Tavares Ferreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cross Infection ◽  
Ultrasound Scan ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Source Of Infection ◽  
Potential Source ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe authors review the main concepts regarding the importance of cleaning/disinfection of ultrasonography probes, aiming a better comprehension by practitioners and thus enabling strategies to establish a safe practice without compromising the quality of the examination and the operator productivity. In the context of biosafety, it is imperative to assume that contact with blood or body fluids represents a potential source of infection. Thus, in order to implement cleaning/disinfection practice, it is necessary to understand the principles of infection control, to consider the cost/benefit ratio of the measures to be implemented, and most importantly, to comprehend that such measures will not only benefit the health professional and the patient, but the society as a whole.

scholarly journals The unpopularity of incentive-based instruments: what improves the cost–benefit ratio?

Public Choice ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 175 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 37-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Stadelmann-Steffen ◽  
Clau Dermont
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

An Economic Evaluation of the Introduction of Vaccination Against Hepatitis a in a Peacekeeping Operation: The Case of the United Nations Protection Force in Yugoslavia

1994 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 490-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Jefferson ◽  
Vittorio Demicheli ◽  
David Wright
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Marginal Cost ◽  
Hepatitis A ◽  
Passive Immunization ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe costs and benefits of vaccinating troops on United Nations tours in Yugoslavia against hepatitis A were compared. The marginal cost of one case of hepatitis A avoided by vaccination was calculated and compared with the marginal cost of achieving the same outcome by passive immunization. The cost-benefit ratio (medium estimate) for troops at low risk of contracting hepatitis A was 0.01 and for those at high risk was 0.03.Vaccinating troops against hepatitis A for a single deployment appears to be an inefficient procedure, especially in troops at low risk. However, in professional troops from countries of low hepatitis A endemicity who are likely to be involved in several operational deployments, vaccination becomes more efficient the more times the same troops are deployed.

Efficacy of quinalphos 25 EC for the management of wheat aphid

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ajai Srivastava ◽  
Sudheer Rana ◽  
Vijay Rana ◽  
Sandeep Manuja
Keyword(s):  
Grain Yield ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Control Cost ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Net Profit ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
Untreated Check ◽  
Better Than

The present investigation was undertaken to find out the effective and economical control measures for the management of foliage feeding wheat aphids, for which three insecticides viz quinalphos 25 EC, thiamethoxam 25 % WG, and spinosad 45 EC were evaluated. Minimum aphid population was observed in case of quinalphos 25 EC @1600 ml/ha and was found at par with spinosad 45 EC @125 ml/ha and was found significantly better than other treatments, viz. quinalphos @1200 ml/ha and thiamethoxam 25 % WG @ 100 gm/ha including untreated check after 7 days of treatment. However, quinalphos 25 EC @1600 ml/ha and spinosad 45 EC @125 ml/ha and significantly better than other treatments including untreated check. Grain yield of plot treated with quinalphos 25 EC @1600 ml/ha was registered with highest yield (39.25 q/ha) and significantly better than other treatments including control. Cost-benefit ratio and net profit calculated for different insecticidal treatments revealed that quinalphos 25 EC @1600 ml/ha (1:9.65) was found highly cost effective as compare to other insecticides.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document