A cost-effectiveness analysis of social  transfers on human capital accumulation

The paper reports on an ex-ante evaluation of the long-term effect of the Ecuadorian social transfer programme called “Bono de Desarrollo Humano (BDH)” on human capital accumulation. A dynamic cohort microsimulation model is used to analyse for cost-effectiveness of different policy scenarios. Results show that cash transfers do promotehuman capital accumulation but with rather small effect. Transfers targeted at critical ages are the most cost-effective to promote human capital accumulation

Download Full-text

When the money runs out: Do cash transfers have sustained effects on human capital accumulation?

Journal of Development Economics ◽

10.1016/j.jdeveco.2019.04.004 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 140 ◽

pp. 169-185 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Sarah Baird ◽

Craig McIntosh ◽

Berk Özler

Keyword(s):

Human Capital ◽

Capital Accumulation ◽

Cash Transfers ◽

Human Capital Accumulation ◽

Sustained Effects

Download Full-text

Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Candesartan Therapy in Comparison to Candesartan-Amlodipine Therapy on Hypertensive Outpatients

Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences ◽

10.3889/oamjms.2019.515 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (22) ◽

pp. 3837-3840

Author(s):

Faridah Baroroh ◽

Andriana Sari ◽

Noviana Masruroh

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Hypertension Therapy ◽

The Mean ◽

The Cost

BACKGROUND: he achievement of optimal hypertension therapy requires cost-effective medicine. The treatment of hypertensive patients needs for long-term medication have made medical costs a prime issue in health economics. AIM: This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of candesartan therapy compared to candesartan-amlodipine therapy on hypertensive outpatients. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study that compares candesartan therapy to candesartan-amlodipine therapy at a public hospital from payers’ perspective. The outcome is the percentage of targeted blood pressure decrease after three months of therapy. The cost effectiveness analysis uses the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) based on the ratio of cost difference to the outcome in both therapy groups. RESULTS: As many as 111 patients participated in this research, comprising 40 candesartan therapy patients and 71 patients with the combination of candesartan-amlodipine. Of the participants, 63.96% were female, 57.66% were aged 60 or older, and 56.32% had diabetes mellitus as the most common complication. Results show that the average direct medical cost per patient for a therapy of three months with candesartan was IDR 1,050,536 ± 730,007 and IDR 760,040 ± 614,290 for a candesartan-amlodipine therapy. The mean decline of systolic and diastolic blood pressure under candesartan therapy is less than that of candesartan-amlodipine, although without any significant difference (p > 0.05). It follows that the effectiveness of candesartan (85%) is greater than that of the candesartan-amlodipine combination (84.50%). Candesartan therapy is thereby more cost-effective with an ICER value of IDR 580,993/%. CONCLUSION: Hypertension therapy by candesartan is more cost-effective than candesartan-amlodipine therapy with a cost addition of IDR 580,993.

Download Full-text

Peripherally inserted central catheter versus totally implanted venous port for delivering medium- to long-term chemotherapy: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on propensity score matching

The Journal of Vascular Access ◽

10.1177/1129729821991360 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 112972982199136

Author(s):

Kairong Wang ◽

Yingfeng Zhou ◽

Na Huang ◽

Zhenqi Lu ◽

Xiaoju Zhang

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Propensity Score ◽

Propensity Score Matching ◽

Vascular Access ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Total Cost ◽

Effectiveness Analysis

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and totally implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) have been widely used for medium- to long-term chemotherapy. PICCs are associated with lower insertion cost, but higher complication rates than PORTs. However, there is a paucity of cost-effectiveness comparisons between the devices. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PICCs and PORTs for medium- to long-term chemotherapy from catheter insertion to removal. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on propensity score matching (PSM) from the hospital perspective. Data were collected from a retrospective cohort study. The total cost outcome comprised insertion, maintenance, removal and complication costs. The effectiveness outcome was the complication-free rate. The primary and supplemental outcomes were cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: A total of 1050 patients (after PSM for 417 patients) were included. The average total cost for 3–6 month ($603.55 ± 78.68 vs $1270.21 ± 128.84), 6–9 month ($731.40 ± 42.97 vs $1414.48 ± 155.43), and 9–12 month ($966.83 ± 53.78 vs $1587.76 ± 160.56) dwell times were all significantly lower for PICCs than for PORTs ( p < 0.001). PICCs were associated with significantly lower complication-free rates than PORTs during the 3–6 month (65.22% vs 90.58%, p < 0.001), 6–9 month (53.33% vs 91.80%, p < 0.001), and 9–12 month (44.44% vs 88.46%, p = 0.015) dwell times. Ultimately, PICCs were associated with lower CERs than PORTs for the 3–6 month (928.54 vs 1395.84) and 6–9 month (1380.00 vs 1537.48) but higher CER for the 9–12 month (2197.34 vs 1804.27) dwell times. ICERs were 2564.08 and 1751.49 with dwell times of 3–6 months and 6–9 months, respectively. Conclusion: This study provided economic evidence that informs vascular access device choice for medium- to long-term chemotherapy. For 3–9 month dwell times, PICCs were more cost-effective than PORTs. Furthermore, ICERs were applied and the choice was determined by willingness-to-pay. For 9–12 month dwell times, PORTs might be more cost-effective than PICCs, and studies with larger sample size would be needed to verify this finding in the future.

Download Full-text

Do Long-Run Disasters Promote Human Capital in China? —The Impact of 500 Years of Natural Disasters on County-Level Human-Capital Accumulation

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph17207422 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 17 (20) ◽

pp. 7422

Author(s):

Zhidi Zhang ◽

Jianqing Ruan

Keyword(s):

Human Capital ◽

Natural Disasters ◽

Capital Accumulation ◽

Capital Investment ◽

Physical Capital ◽

Human Capital Accumulation ◽

Force Dynamics ◽

Long Run ◽

The Impact

Is there a relationship between the frequency of regional natural disasters and long-term human-capital accumulation? This article investigates the long-run causality between natural calamities and human-capital accumulation with macro and micro data. Empirical cross-county analysis demonstrates that higher frequencies of natural calamities are correlated with higher rates of human-capital accumulation. Specifically, on the basis of empirical data of the fifth census in 2000 and China’s Labor-Force Dynamics Survey in 2012, this paper exploits the two databases to infer that the high disaster frequency in the years of 1500–2000 was likely to increase regional human-capital accumulation on district level. High natural-calamity frequency reduces the expected rate of returning to physical capital, which also serves to increase human-capital. Thus, experiencing with natural disasters would influence human’s preference to human-capital investment instead of physical capital.

Download Full-text