scholarly journals The Economic Evaluation of Group Examination for Gastrointestianl Disease in an Electronics Corporation : The Cost-Benefit Analysis Follow-Up Study for Peptic Ulcer

1999 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Yoshiko SUMI
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayara Fontes Marx ◽  
John E. Ataguba ◽  
Jantina de Vries ◽  
Ambroise Wonkam

Objectives: Discussions regarding who and how incidental findings (IFs) should be returned and the ethics behind returning IFs have increased dramatically over the years. However, information on the cost and benefits of returning IFs to patients remains scanty.Design: This study systematically reviews the economic evaluation of returning IFs in genomic sequencing. We searched for published articles on the cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-utility of IFs in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar.Results: We found six published articles that met the eligibility criteria of this study. Two articles used cost analysis only, one used cost-benefit analysis only, two used both cost analysis and cost-effectiveness, and one used both cost-benefit analysis and cost-utility to describe the cost of returning IFs in genomic sequencing.Conclusion: While individuals value the IF results and are willing to pay for them, the cost of returning IFs depends on the primary health condition of the patient. Although patients were willing to pay, there was no clear evidence that returning IFs might be cost-effective. More rigorous economic evaluation studies of IFs are needed to determine whether or not the cost of returning IFs is beneficial to the patient.


Author(s):  
Jan Abel Olsen

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.


2007 ◽  
pp. 70-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Demidova

This article analyzes definitions and the role of hostile takeovers at the Russian and European markets for corporate control. It develops the methodology of assessing the efficiency of anti-takeover defenses adapted to the conditions of the Russian market. The paper uses the cost-benefit analysis, where the costs and benefits of the pre-bid and post-bid defenses are compared.


1999 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 153-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. H. Newsome ◽  
C. D. Stephen

Many countries are investing in measures to improve surface water quality, but the investment programmes for so doing are increasingly becoming subject to cost-benefit analysis. Whilst the cost of control measures can usually be determined for individual improvement schemes, there are currently no established procedures for valuing the benefits attributable to improved surface water quality. The paper describes a methodology that has been derived that now makes this possible.


Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1297
Author(s):  
Juntae Kim ◽  
Hyo-Dong Han ◽  
Wang Yeol Lee ◽  
Collins Wakholi ◽  
Jayoung Lee ◽  
...  

Currently, the pork industry is incorporating in-line automation with the aim of increasing the slaughtered pork carcass throughput while monitoring quality and safety. In Korea, 21 parameters (such as back-fat thickness and carcass weight) are used for quality grading of pork carcasses. Recently, the VCS2000 system—an automatic meat yield grading machine system—was introduced to enhance grading efficiency and therefore increase pork carcass production. The VCS2000 system is able to predict pork carcass yield based on image analysis. This study also conducted an economic analysis of the system using a cost—benefit analysis. The subsection items of the cost-benefit analysis considered were net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and benefit/cost ratio (BC ratio), and each method was verified through sensitivity analysis. For our analysis, the benefits were grouped into three categories: the benefits of reducing labor costs, the benefits of improving meat yield production, and the benefits of reducing pig feed consumption through optimization. The cost-benefit analysis of the system resulted in an NPV of approximately 615.6 million Korean won, an IRR of 13.52%, and a B/C ratio of 1.65.


2009 ◽  
Vol 68 (10) ◽  
pp. 2479-2484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Charles Hourcade ◽  
Philippe Ambrosi ◽  
Patrice Dumas

2004 ◽  
Vol 61 (7) ◽  
pp. 1269-1284 ◽  
Author(s):  
RIC Chris Francis ◽  
Steven E Campana

In 1985, Boehlert (Fish. Bull. 83: 103–117) suggested that fish age could be estimated from otolith measurements. Since that time, a number of inferential techniques have been proposed and tested in a range of species. A review of these techniques shows that all are subject to at least one of four types of bias. In addition, they all focus on assigning ages to individual fish, whereas the estimation of population parameters (particularly proportions at age) is usually the goal. We propose a new flexible method of inference based on mixture analysis, which avoids these biases and makes better use of the data. We argue that the most appropriate technique for evaluating the performance of these methods is a cost–benefit analysis that compares the cost of the estimated ages with that of the traditional annulus count method. A simulation experiment is used to illustrate both the new method and the cost–benefit analysis.


1993 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 41-44

The relationship between drug costs and treatment choices was the subject of the first annual Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin symposium held in March 1993.* In a time of severe financial constraints for the NHS it is important that the money available is well spent. In the case of treatment that means the benefits must be worth the cost. There is, however, no agreed way of deciding when a particular health benefit to an individual is worth the cost to the NHS. Drug prices are easier to measure and more consistent than the prices of other treatments, and may be more amenable to cost-benefit analysis. Treatment choices are made primarily by doctors but with critical input from patients, pharmacists, nurses and health service managers. In this article we give an overview of the symposium at which speakers described ways in which drug costs and treatment choices were tackled in general practice (Ann McPherson, John Howie), in hospital (Dorothy Anderson), in clinical research and audit (Iain Chalmers, Alison Frater), by consumers (Anna Bradley), by health economists (Mike Drummond) and by government (Joe Collier). We also take into account points raised in discussion by the participants.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document