scholarly journals Cost of Myopia Correction: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Lian Foo ◽  
Carla Lanca ◽  
Chee Wai Wong ◽  
Daniel Ting ◽  
Ecosse Lamoureux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Contact Lenses ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Burden Of Illness ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Direct Costs ◽  
Health Coverage ◽  
Cost Of Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Myopia is one of the leading causes of visual impairment globally. Despite increasing prevalence and incidence, the associated cost of treatment remains unclear. Health care spending is a major concern in many countries and understanding the cost of myopia correction is the first step eluding to the overall cost of myopia treatment. As cost of treatment will reduce the burden of cost of illness, this will aid in future cost-benefit analysis and the allocation of healthcare resources, including considerations in integrating eye care (refractive correction with spectacles) into universal health coverage (UHC). We performed a systematic review to determine the economic costs of myopia correction. However, there were few studies for direct comparison. Costs related to myopia correction were mainly direct with few indirect costs. Annual prevalence-based direct costs for myopia ranged from $14-26 (USA), $56 (Iran) and $199 (Singapore) per capita, respectively (population: 274.63 million, 75.15 million and 3.79 million, respectively). Annually, the direct costs of contact lens were $198.30-$378.10 while spectacles and refractive surgeries were $342.50 and $19.10, respectively. This review provides an insight to the cost of myopia correction. Myopia costs are high from nation-wide perspectives because of the high prevalence of myopia, with contact lenses being the more expensive option. Without further interventions, the burden of illness of myopia will increase substantially with the projected increase in prevalence worldwide. Future studies will be necessary to generate more homogenous cost data and provide a complete picture of the global economic cost of myopia.

scholarly journals HPV Vaccination Program for Sixth-Grade Girls in Washington, D.C.: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Sarah Snyder
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Hpv Vaccination ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Of Treatment ◽  
Additional Costs ◽  
The Cost

This cost-benefit analysis studies the most significant costs and benefits of the new requirement in Washington, D.C. that all parents of sixth-grade girls certify that their children are vaccinated against the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). Thelargest costs are the economic cost of purchasing the vaccine and the costs of administration to providers, which total just over $2.1 million per year. Additional costs that cannot be easily monetized but are included conceptually include the potential for adverse events and opportunity costs of providers and parents. The largest potential for benefits from this policy relate to the two diseases prevented by the vaccine: genital warts and cervical cancer. By quantifying the cost of treatment for both diseases and estimating the economic value of lives lost, this analysis estimates the benefits to be nearly $1.5 million yearly. Thus, the economic analysis finds this policy inefficient, since benefits greatly outweigh costs in all but one scenario of sensitivity analysis. The analysis also identifies the limitations of this study and of cost-benefit analysis generally, and cautions against the sole use of cost-benefit analysis, especially for health policy decisions.

Understanding among medical oncologists of the true monetary cost of therapy

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6629-6629
Author(s):  
K. R. Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Myelogenous Leukemia ◽  
First Line ◽  
Cost Of Treatment ◽  
Monetary Cost ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
Metastatic Setting ◽  
The Cost

6629 Background: While oncologists are educated to deal with the medical complexities of their treatment, a new side effect, that of financial toxicity, has arisen over the past several years. One of the major challenges in private practice is explaining the monetary cost of treatment to the patient. Methods: 50 medical oncologists agreed to take a survey judging their knowledge of the financial cost of the treatments used in patients with the five most common tumors treated in the office: breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and three other commonly treated cancers: chronic myelogenous leukemia, multiple myeloma and ovarian cancer. Treatment regimens in the adjuvant and first line metastatic setting were used. Physicians were asked to calculate the cost of treatments to the patient and not the acquisition price of drugs. They were asked to calculate the cost based a patient completing their adjuvant therapy or treatment in the first-line metastatic setting, which was defined by each practicioner. If desired, this included the use of maintenance therapy. A body surface area of 1.8 M2 for men and 1.6 M2 for women was used. Results: 39 medical oncologists completed the entire survey. Of these, 11 were in solo practicie. 27/39 were in practice over 15 years, while only 4 were in practice under 5 years. In almost all cases where intravenous or oral targeted therapies were used, the physicians under-estimated the actual cost of treatment to the patient by 25–40%. When ‘conventional‘ intravenous chemotherapy was used, they were either correct or over-estimated the cost of treatment by 25 to 33%, especially when generic substitution of trade name drugs were available. More importantly, the actual dollar difference was up to $50,000 when targeted therapies were in the treatment regimen but only around $5,000 when conventional treatments were considered. Nearly all the physicians were ‘within the ballpark‘ when dealing with the cost of oral medications. Conclusions: Medical oncologists have a poor understanding of the monetary costs of the newer treatments they are prescribing. More education is needed in the economics, including monetary cost-benefit analysis, of oncology practice so that we can better serve our patients and society. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Radiation costing methods: a systematic review

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 392 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Rahman ◽  
S.J. Seung ◽  
S.Y. Cheng ◽  
H. Saherawala ◽  
C.C. Earle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Personnel Costs ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
The Cost ◽  
3D Crt

ObjectiveCosts for radiation therapy (rt) and the methods used to cost rt are highly diverse across the literature. To date, no study has compared various costing methods in detail. Our objective was to perform a thorough review of the radiation costing literature to identify sources of costs and methods used.Methods A systematic review of Ovid medline, Ovid oldmedline, embase, Ovid HealthStar, and EconLit from 2005 to 23 March 2015 used search terms such as “radiation,” “radiotherapy,” “neoplasm,” “cost,” “ cost analysis,” and “cost benefit analysis” to locate relevant articles. Original papers were reviewed for detailed costing methods. Cost sources and methods were extracted for papers investigating rt modalities, including three-dimensional conformal rt (3D-crt), intensity-modulated rt (imrt), stereotactic body rt (sbrt), and brachytherapy (bt). All costs were translated into 2014 U.S. dollars.Results Most of the studies (91%) reported in the 33 articles retrieved provided rt costs from the health system perspective. The cost of rt ranged from US$2,687.87 to US$111,900.60 per treatment for imrt, followed by US$5,583.28 to US$90,055 for 3D-crt, US$10,544.22 to US$78,667.40 for bt, and US$6,520.58 to US$19,602.68 for sbrt. Cost drivers were professional or personnel costs and the cost of rt treatment. Most studies did not address the cost of rt equipment (85%) and institutional or facility costs (66%).Conclusions Costing methods and sources were widely variable across studies, highlighting the need for consistency in the reporting of rt costs. More work to promote comparability and consistency across studies is needed.

scholarly journals Cost-Benefit Analysis of Drinking Water Fluoridation in 12-year-old Children in the Biobío Region, Chile.

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Camilo Ulloa ◽  
◽  
Catherine de la Puente ◽  
Fernando Rojas ◽  
Sofía Irigoyen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drinking Water ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Water Fluoridation ◽  
Effective Measure ◽  
Alternative Interventions ◽  
Benefit Evaluation ◽  
The Cost

Fluoridation has been shown to be an effective measure against caries in children. The present study evaluates the cost-benefit of the fluoridated water program for the reduction of dental caries in 12-year-old children in the Biobío Region, the only region in Chile that has not implemented this program. An economic cost-benefit evaluation was carried out, comparing two alternative interventions: non-fluoridated drinking water versus fluoridated drinking water. The prevalence of caries, direct and indirect costs of the treatments, the cost of implementing the programs and the benefits of both interventions were estimated. From this study it is concluded that the savings in oral health costs in 12-year-old children when using fluoridating drinking water in the Biobío region is significantly higher than the cost involved in implementing the water fluoridation program, resulting in total savings for the Chilean state of $129,861,645 (USD$ 152,833) as well as an estimated reduction of 15% in the history of caries in the study population

Cost Effectiveness and Cost Benefit of Vaccination Against Pneumococcal Pneumonia. Implications for Clinical Practice

1982 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 299-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Sisk Willems
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Pneumococcal Pneumonia ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Pneumococcal Vaccination ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Of Treatment ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe economic techniques of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis have provided useful insights into the potential advantages of vaccination against pneumococcal pneumonia. They suggest that the cost of vaccinating persons 65 years and older and perhaps younger persons with high risk conditions would be reasonable when compared with the cost of treatment for pneumococcal pneumonia. These findings, together with other considerations, may guide physicians and health care policymakers in deciding which individuals might be expected to benefit from pneumococcal vaccination.

The cost of treatment dropout in depression A cost-benefit analysis of fluoxetine vs. tricyclics

1994 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Le Pen ◽  
E. Levy ◽  
V. Ravily ◽  
J.N. Beuzen ◽  
F. Meurgey
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Treatment Dropout ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Of Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Hostile Takeovers and Anti-takeover Defenses in the Russian Corporate Market

2007 ◽  
pp. 70-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Demidova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Hostile Takeovers ◽  
Russian Market ◽  
Takeover Defenses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
European Markets

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.

What's it Worth? Improving Surface Water Quality

1999 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 153-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. H. Newsome ◽  
C. D. Stephen
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Surface Water ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Surface Water Quality ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
The Cost

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.

scholarly journals Economic Analysis of the Use of VCS2000 for Pork Carcass Meat Yield Grading in Korea

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1297
Author(s):  
Juntae Kim ◽  
Hyo-Dong Han ◽  
Wang Yeol Lee ◽  
Collins Wakholi ◽  
Jayoung Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Net Present Value ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Feed Consumption ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Labor Costs ◽  
Meat Yield ◽  
The Cost

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document