Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Promotion Programs

1990 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 448-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Z. Barry ◽  
Gordon H. DeFriese
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Health Promotion Programs

Wellbeing Cost-effectiveness Analysis and Existing Approaches

2021 ◽  
pp. 279-332
Author(s):  
Paul Frijters ◽  
Christian Krekel
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Business Case ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Important Distinction ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Public Resource ◽  
The Individual

The fourth chapter is targeted mainly at readers who wish to quantify how much benefits and costs are generated by future or existing policies and programmes. The chapter compares the authors’ basic methodology for wellbeing cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) with existing approaches to decide on public resource allocations. The main comparison is with cost-benefit analysis (CBA), but they also compare it with multi-criterion approaches, social rates of return analyses, and business case scenarios or impact assessments. The authors start with a quick reminder of their basic methodology for wellbeing CEA, after which they sketch the current practice of CBA, highlighting the differences in a stylized, non-technical manner. They also sketch the relationship between WELLBYs (wellbeing years) and QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years), deriving a proper translation between the two measures, which will culminate in the important distinction between the individual willingness-to-pay for a WELLBY and the social costs of producing a WELLBY. They then answer some crucial questions as to how more wellbeing knowledge can be incorporated into existing approaches, including the question of the monetization of wellbeing effects for current-practice CBA. Apart from analysts, this chapter is also of interest to academics in the fields of health and wellbeing as it discusses in depth the differences between WELLBYs and QALYs. The discussion on wellbeing approaches from around the world is of importance to all those tasked with embedding wellbeing into their own country’s public-sector systems.

Costs and cost-effectiveness in critical care

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Wallace ◽  
Derek C. Angus
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Funding Policy ◽  
Cost Study ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Critical care accounts for a large and growing part of national health expenditures. Cost-effectiveness analyses are one way to identify therapies that maximize society’s return on investment. This chapter provides a broad overview of four cost study designs—cost-minimization, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility. Cost -effectiveness analysis allows the costs and benefits of different therapies to be directly compared. Within a constrained budget, cost-effectiveness analysis can identify the optimal therapies for funding. Policy informed by cost effectiveness should improve public health. The reader is introduced to the concepts of cost perspective, included costs and cost discounting. We conclude by describing policy implications of cost effectiveness evaluations and highlight their relevance to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis to the Health Services and the Special Case of Technologic Innovation

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert E. Klarman
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
The Public ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

As an economic technique for evaluating specific projects or programs in the public sector, cost-benefit analysis is relatively new. In this paper, the theory and practice of cost-benefit analysis in general are discussed as a basis for considering its role in assessing technology in the health services. A review of the literature on applications of cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis to the health field reveals that few complete studies have been conducted to date. It is suggested that an adequate analysis requires an empirical approach in which costs and benefits are juxtaposed, and in which presumed benefits reflect an ascertained relationship between inputs and outputs. A threefold classification of benefits is commonly employed: direct, indirect, and intangible. Since the latter pose difficulty, cost-effectiveness analysis is often the more practicable procedure. After summarizing some problems in predicting how technologic developments are likely to affect costs and benefits, the method of cost-benefit analysis is applied to developments of health systems technology in two settings-the hospital and automated multiphasic screening. These examples underscore the importance of solving problems of measurement and valuation of a project or program in its concrete setting. Finally, barriers to the performance of sound and systematic analysis are listed, and the political context of decision making in the public sector is emphasized.

scholarly journals Economic analysis of the stand-by emergency treatment (SBET) for malaria in travellers

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Ferrara
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
National Health ◽  
Emergency Treatment ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Social Costs ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Imported Case ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract Background Stand-by emergency treatment (SBET) is a possible approach for malaria prevention in travellers to low transmission areas (such as South-Eastern Asia [SEA]), but current evidence casts doubts on its feasibility and does not allow to decide whether this strategy is economically rational. Thus, this research aimed to appraise SBET in terms of cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). Methods To design a specific model, SBET benefits (valued as avoided direct and indirect costs of illness) were weighted against the costs associated with SBET doses to be prescribed in order to avoid one imported case of malaria. Direct healthcare costs were obtained allocating last surveillance data for imported malaria to the charge of the corresponding diagnosis-related group category and estimating outpatient care costs. Indirect social costs were calculated in terms of lost productivity. The economic framework was adjusted for the probability of malaria transmission in SEA region and weighed on the Italian context. Results In the model, for five malaria cases estimated to be imported from SEA to Italy in 2017, it was calculated that NHS would be charged with around € 22,487·50. Social costs were determined at € 7,100. Thus, the total Italian public expenditure for malaria cases in SEA travellers was of € 29,587·50 in 2017. In contrast, 50,000 doses were considered to be carried to avoid one malaria imported case, with a cost of € 2.5 million. Conclusions At cost-effectiveness analysis, reimbursement strategy does not lead to a favourable gain owing to the total cost of the SBET doses to be prescribed for avoiding one malaria case. The appraisal of costs and benefits brings into question the economic validation of SBET, also calling for further strategies to be reassessed for travellers to low-risk areas. Key messages Besides the evidence of incorrect SBET use among travellers, the appraisal of costs and benefits brings into question the economic validation of this strategy. Reimbursement for SBET seems to be not cost–effective from the perspective of National Health Services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document