scholarly journals Reining In Patent Costs

2009 ◽  
Vol 131 (08) ◽  
pp. 36-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirk Teska
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Patent Application ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fixed Cost ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Patent Attorney ◽  
Utility Patent ◽  
Basic Patent ◽  
The Cost

This paper focuses on that one can make a fortune if one holds a patent for something that everybody wants; and when one is rich and the patent expires, then in general, the society can benefit from what one invented. According a 2007 survey, the average cost for a utility patent application in the United States is around $12,000. By the time the patent is granted, the total cost could easily exceed $20,000. As for basic patent application drafting information, provide any information that the attorney will need to set the deadline for filing the application. List the names, residential addresses, and citizenship of all the likely inventors. List and provide a copy of all relevant prior papers and patents you know about that are related to the invention. Many companies use “invention disclosure” forms for these purposes. If the patent attorney is willing, ask for a discount for multiple applications and/or fixed cost applications. The overall cost may not be that much lower, but at least the cost is known ahead of time and can budget the patenting efforts accordingly.

The financial impact of fractionation scheme and treatment planning method for rectal cancer in the United States.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6518-6518
Author(s):  
Assaf Moore ◽  
Robert Benjamin Den ◽  
Noa Gordon ◽  
Michal Sarfaty ◽  
Yulia Kundel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
The United States ◽  
Planning Method ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
The Us ◽  
Fractionation Scheme ◽  
The Cost

6518 Background: Preoperative long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and short-course radiotherapy (SCR) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) were found to have equivalent outcomes in three randomized trials. SCR may have lower acute toxicity and the down-staging following CRT is more well-established. At present, SCR is frequently used in Europe but has not been widely adopted in the United States (US). It is standard to deliver radiotherapy by 3D planning, while the use of Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is controversial. In recent years there has been an increasing focus on understanding the cost and value of cancer care. In this study we aimed to assess the economic impact of fractionation scheme and treatment planning method for payers in the US. Methods: We performed a population-based analysis of the total cost of radiotherapy for LARC in the US annually. The national annual target population of patients was calculated using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Treatment costs for various fractionation schemes were based on billing codes and 2018 pricing by Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS). The cost of chemotherapy was based on the Payment Allowance Limits for Medicare Part B Drugs by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Results: We estimate that 12,945 patients with LARC are treated with radiotherapy annually in the US. The cost of CRT with 3-D or IMRT is US$ 15,881.76 and US$ 23,744.82 per patient, respectively. With 3-D SCR the cost is US$ 5,457 per patient. The use of SCR would lead to 64-77% annual savings of US$ 125,701,387 - US$ 236,727,934 in the US compared with 3-D and IMRT based CRT, respectively. IMRT based planning increases the total cost of CRT by 49% and if adopted widely would lead to an excess cost of US$ 101,787,312 annually. Conclusions: SCR may have the potential to save in the region of US$ 0.12-0.23 billion annually in the US, likely without impacting outcomes. Lack of evidence showing benefit with costly IMRT should limit its use to clinical trials. SCR may also lead to lower personal financial toxicity. It would be reasonable for public and private payers to consider which type of radiation is most suited to reimbursement.

scholarly journals Assessing the Costs of Screening for Ovarian Cancer in the United States: An Evolving Analysis

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 67
Author(s):  
Justin W. Gorski ◽  
McKell Quattrone ◽  
John R. van Nagell ◽  
Edward J. Pavlik
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Ovarian Cancer Screening ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Program Costs ◽  
The Cost

The primary objective of this study is to provide an updated analysis of the cost of screening for ovarian cancer in the United States. Here, we use updated information from the University of Kentucky Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial in conjunction with new modifying factors such as U.S. national estimates of the cost of care (Truven Health MarketScan Database), recently published estimates of earnings lost due to ovarian cancer death and estimates of federal income taxes paid on those earnings. In total, 326,998 screens were performed during the Kentucky trial from 1987 to 2019. At a cost of $56 per screen, we estimate that the total base cost to operate the program over the last 32 years is $18,311,888. When accounting for the surgical cost of 381 false-positive cases, the total cost of the screening program increases by $3,030,474. However, these costs are offset by the benefit of treating more early-stage ovarian cancer in the screened population, with a total cost advantage of $4,016,475 at our institution (Kentucky) or $1,525,050 ($725,700–$3,312,650) (U.S.) nationally. Additionally, program costs are offset by approximately $3,549,000 due to the potential earnings gained by the 26 women whose lives have been saved with screening. Furthermore, the cost of the program is offset by the federal tax dollars paid on the recovered earnings and amounts to $383,292. Ultimately, the net adjusted total cost of the Kentucky screening program is an estimated $13,393,595 at our institution or $15,885,020 ($13,978,068–$16,799,083) nationally. Thus, the adjusted cost per screen is an estimated $40.96 in Kentucky or $48.58 ($42.75–$51.37) nationally.

scholarly journals Global Perspective for Protecting Intellectual Property – Patenting in USA and Poland

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-111
Author(s):  
Michalene Eva Grebski ◽  
Radosław Wolniak
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Patent Application ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Perspective ◽  
Knowledge Based ◽  
Modern Knowledge ◽  
Protecting Intellectual Property ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Paper addresses the different methods for protecting intellectual property in modern knowledge-based economies. The focus of the paper is a comparison between the procedures for applying for patents in Poland and the United States. The comparison has been made from the perspective of the cost of obtaining and maintaining a patent in Poland, the United States and some other countries. The comparison has also been made from the perspective of the procedures for applying for a patent in different countries based on the Patent Cooperation Treaty. The paper also includes a comparison of the time needed for processing the patent application. Low cost provisional twelve-month patent pending protection available in the United States is also being discussed. The paper also provides some guidance and recommendations for conducting a patent search in order to validate the originality of the invention.

EDITORIAL: Migration and competitiveness: Japan and the United States

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-124
Author(s):  
Philip L. Martin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Variable Cost ◽  
Fixed Cost ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Science And Engineering ◽  
The Past ◽  
Past Half Century ◽  
Key Sectors ◽  
Past Half

Japan and the United States, the world’s largest economies for most of the past half century, have very different immigration policies. Japan is the G7 economy most closed to immigrants, while the United States is the large economy most open to immigrants. Both Japan and the United States are debating how immigrants are and can con-tribute to the competitiveness of their economies in the 21st centuries. The papers in this special issue review the employment of and impacts of immigrants in some of the key sectors of the Japanese and US economies, including agriculture, health care, science and engineering, and construction and manufacturing. For example, in Japanese agriculture migrant trainees are a fixed cost to farmers during the three years they are in Japan, while US farmers who hire mostly unauthorized migrants hire and lay off workers as needed, making labour a variable cost.

scholarly journals SWK-11. ASSESSMENT OF THE INDIRECT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROTON THERAPY TREATMENT FOR ALBERTA PATIENTS REFERRED OUT OF COUNTRY

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii466-iii466
Author(s):  
Karina Black ◽  
Jackie Middleton ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
David Eisenstat ◽  
Samor Patel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Proton Therapy ◽  
Malignant Tumors ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Opportunity Costs ◽  
Proton Treatment ◽  
Out Of Pocket Expenses ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BACKGROUND Proton therapy for benign and malignant tumors has dosimetric and clinical advantages over photon therapy. Patients in Alberta, Canada are referred to the United States for proton treatment. The Alberta Heath Care Insurance Plan (AHCIP) pays for the proton treatment and the cost of flights to and from the United States (direct costs). This study aimed to determine the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by patients or their families (indirect costs). METHODS Invitation letters linked to an electronic survey were mailed to patients treated with protons between 2008 and 2018. Expenses for flights for other family members, accommodations, transportation, food, passports, insurance, and opportunity costs including lost wages and productivity were measured. RESULTS Fifty-nine invitation letters were mailed. Seventeen surveys were completed (28.8% response rate). One paper survey was mailed at participant request. Nine respondents were from parent/guardian, 8 from patients. All patients were accompanied to the US by a family member/friend. Considerable variability in costs and reimbursements were reported. Many of the accompanying family/friends had to miss work; only 3 patients themselves reported missed work. Time away from work varied, and varied as to whether it was paid or unpaid time off. CONCLUSIONS Respondents incurred indirect monetary and opportunity costs which were not covered by AHCIP when traveling out of country for proton therapy. Prospective studies could help provide current data minimizing recall bias. These data may be helpful for administrators in assessing the societal cost of out-of-country referral of patients for proton therapy.

scholarly journals The Effect of Massachusetts' Health Reform on Employer-Sponsored Insurance Premiums

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
John F Cogan ◽  
R. Glenn Hubbard ◽  
Daniel Kessler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Reform ◽  
Medical Expenditure Panel Survey ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Expenditure ◽  
Insurance Premiums ◽  
Reform Plan ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Cost

In this paper, we use publicly available data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) to investigate the effect of Massachusetts' health reform plan on employer-sponsored insurance premiums. We tabulate premium growth for private-sector employers in Massachusetts and the United States as a whole for 2004 - 2008. We estimate the effect of the plan as the difference in premium growth between Massachusetts and the United States between 2006 and 2008—that is, before versus after the plan—over and above the difference in premium growth for 2004 to 2006. We find that health reform in Massachusetts increased single-coverage employer-sponsored insurance premiums by about 6 percent, or $262. Although our research design has important limitations, it does suggest that policy makers should be concerned about the consequences of health reform for the cost of private insurance.

Importance of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia in Primary Care

2000 ◽  
Vol 12 (S1) ◽  
pp. 67-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
William H. Coleman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Direct Relationship ◽  
Psychological Symptoms ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Number Of Individuals ◽  
Behavioral And Psychological Symptoms

There is a direct relationship between years lived beyond age 65 and the number of individuals diagnosed with dementia, primarily Alzheimer's disease (AD). The occurrence of AD has no socioeconomic, geographical, or ethnic limitations. The problem is worldwide. Its magnitude is demonstrated by the following facts: (a) approximately 6% to 8% of persons 65 years or older have AD, and the prevalence of the disease doubles each 5 years after 60 years of age; (b) 30% of 85-year-old individuals can be expected to have the disease; (c) AD affects an estimated 4 million people in the United States, and is expected to affect approximately 14 million Americans within the next few decades; (d) AD patients average 6 to 10 years of comprehensive treatment from symptom onset to death; (e) AD is the fourth leading cause of mortality among elderly Americans, more than 100,000 each year; (f) caregiver attempts at management of the behavioral and psychological symptoms of AD result in up to 50% developing significant psychological distress themselves; and (g) the cost for the management of AD patients is estimated to be between US $80 billion and US $120 billion annually. Primary care is essential for the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of the complex set of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) associated with AD.

scholarly journals Projections of the Cost of Cancer Care in the United States: 2010-2020

2011 ◽  
Vol 103 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. B. Mariotto ◽  
K. Robin Yabroff ◽  
Y. Shao ◽  
E. J. Feuer ◽  
M. L. Brown
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Cost
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document