Clinical and cost comparison of long-term catheterization and Memokath prostatic stenting

Author(s):  
A Chaudry ◽  
C Booth
Keyword(s):  
1975 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 59-60

When there is little to choose between different drugs available for the same purpose, as in the case of the anti-inflammatory analgesic drugs discussed in the preceding article, it is reasonable to make the choice on grounds of cost. It can however be difficult to construct a meaningful cost comparison for the drugs in a particular therapeutic group. One obvious problem is that of dosage, for it is not clear which dose in a wide range should be chosen for the comparison. Perhaps the most appropriate dosage is that most commonly used (the modal dosage) in long-term maintenance therapy. The modal dose could be derived from an analysis of prescriptions, or estimated approximately from clinical trial reports, or from a consensus view of clinicians with experience of the drug. But provided the dose used in a comparison is clearly stated the result should not mislead anyone, even if the dose is chosen arbitrarily. A second problem is the difference in drug costs in hospitals and in retail pharmacy. Hospital prices are generally not published, and vary between different hospitals, whereas retail pharmacy prices are published and uniform. Some manufacturers have deliberately charged hospitals low prices for a drug and retail pharmacists high prices, presumably to increase use of the drug in hospitals which are more cost-conscious, and which also influence prescribing by family doctors in their catchment area. As long as such multiple pricing continues it seems more practical to base comparisons on retail costs. Thirdly, should non-drug costs be included, such as the pharmacist’s fee, on-cost allowance, and container allowance; and should the sum collected as prescription charge be deducted? Since on the whole these items are constant, they do not affect the essentials of comparisons and they may just as well be omitted.


Author(s):  
George Ford ◽  
Paul Yanik

Per British thermal unit (BTU), in the United States, gasoline currently costs about 7.6 times as much as coal. Due to the prevalence of coal fired electricity generating stations in the country, electrically powered vehicles may provide a fuel cost savings over similar gasoline powered vehicles. Fuel costs for electric vehicles have been reported to cost about $0.045 per mile to operate. Higher efficiency, gasoline operated automobiles such as the Toyota Corolla have reported fuel costs of about $0.093 per mile. This paper provides a first glance examination of electrically powered and gasoline powered vehicles in the United States. While gasoline costs continue to rise, a cheap, environmentally safe transportation alternative is needed to maintain the flexible lifestyle currently enjoyed by Americans. The cycle energy efficiency of coal produced electricity for personal transportation is much lower than the energy efficiency of gasoline, but the large cost differences between these two forms of fossil fuels may provide a temporary fix to a looming transportation crisis in the United States. The long-term environmental effects of an electrically powered, private transportation fleet could prove catastrophic due to increased use of coal and accompanying combustion product air pollution, but clean, renewable, electricity producing technologies may support more prolific long-term use of electrically powered transportation modes.


Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Poonsapaya ◽  
Michael Einodshofer ◽  
Heather S. Kirkham ◽  
Pheophilus Glover ◽  
Janeen DuChane

1986 ◽  
Vol 43 (11) ◽  
pp. 2771-2779
Author(s):  
Penny W. Lepinski ◽  
Thomas S. Thielke ◽  
D. Michael Collins ◽  
Alan Hanson

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 710-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Noll ◽  
Britt H. Tonnessen ◽  
Jason Kim ◽  
Samuel R. Money ◽  
W. Charles Sternbergh
Keyword(s):  

1999 ◽  
Vol 172 (3) ◽  
pp. 673-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
H M Noh ◽  
J A Kaufman ◽  
J T Rhea ◽  
S Y Kim ◽  
S C Geller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document