Cost Impact
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

325
(FIVE YEARS 118)

H-INDEX

20
(FIVE YEARS 8)

Author(s):  
Brent B. Moritz ◽  
Arunachalam Narayanan ◽  
Chris Parker

Problem definition: We study the bullwhip effect and analyze the impact of human behavior. We separate rational ordering in response to increasing incoming orders from irrational ordering. Academic/practical relevance: Prior research has shown that the bullwhip effect occurs in about two-thirds of firms and impacts profitability by 10%–30%. Most bullwhip mitigation efforts emphasize processes such as information sharing, collaboration, and coordination. Previous work has not been able to separate the impact of behavioral ordering from rational increases in order quantities. Methodology: Using data from a laboratory experiment, we estimate behavioral parameters from three ordering models. We use a simulation to evaluate the cost impact of bullwhip behavior on the supply chain and by echelon. Results: We find that cost increases are not equally shared. Human biases (behavioral ordering) at the retailer results in higher relative costs elsewhere in the supply chain, even as similar ordering by a wholesaler, distributor, or factory results in increased costs within that echelon. These results are consistent regardless of the behavioral models that we consider. The cognitive profile of the decision maker impacts both echelon and supply chain costs. We show that the cost impact is higher as more decision makers enter a supply chain. Managerial implications: The cost of behavioral ordering is not consistent across the supply chain. Managers can use the estimation/simulation framework to analyze the impact of human behavior in their supply chains and evaluate improvement efforts such as coordination or information sharing. Our results show that behavioral ordering by a retailer has an out-sized impact on supply chain costs, which suggests that upstream echelons are better placed to make forecasting and replenishment decisions.


Burns ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kafi N. Sanders ◽  
Jyoti Aggarwal ◽  
Jennifer M. Stephens ◽  
Steven N. Michalopoulos ◽  
Donna Dalton ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. S175-S176
Author(s):  
Taylor Shackleford ◽  
William Hickman ◽  
Ankur Makani ◽  
Brent Zutaut ◽  
Clinton Garret Cooper ◽  
...  

The Breast ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ettienne J. Myburgh ◽  
Josephus J. de Jager ◽  
Elizabeth Murray ◽  
Kathleen A. Grant ◽  
Maritha J. Kotze ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18836-e18836
Author(s):  
Sameh Gaballa ◽  
Moshe Y. Levy ◽  
Michael Keith ◽  
Alex Wong ◽  
David Proudman ◽  
...  

e18836 Background: Tazemetostat, a first-in-class oral, selective methyltransferase inhibitor of enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) activity, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of patients with R/R FL after demonstrating single-agent antitumor activity in patients with wild-type or mutant EZH2. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors (PI3Kis; idelalisib, duvelisib, and copanlisib) are also indicated for 3L+ R/R FL, but these drugs are associated with serious toxicities, such as neutropenia, infection, and immune-mediated toxicities. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of tazemetostat with these 3 PI3Kis was previously presented in 3L+ R/R FL, showing that tazemetostat is associated with more favorable safety, and similar efficacy compared to each of the PI3Kis. The objective of this study was to estimate the difference in AE-related health care costs for each treatment. Methods: AE-related costs were sourced from a study of costs in patients hospitalized with AEs, using oncology-specific data when available. Matching-adjusted AE incidence was multiplied by costs related to each AE. Grade ≥3 AEs with incidence ≥5% for any of the evaluated treatments were included. Cost differences were estimated per treatment episode, based on duration of exposure in the tazemetostat clinical trial (9.3 months for tazemetostat, <7 months for the 3 comparators). Incidence rates were then converted to a monthly basis using an exponential curve. Results: The PI3Kis are estimated to incur $13,534 to $18,737 higher AE-related management costs per episode compared with tazemetostat. Adjusting for duration of exposure, each of the PI3Kis is project to cost $2,563 to $3,820 more per month than tazemetostat in AE-related costs. These estimates indicate that the AE-related cost impact of PI3Kis compared with tazemetostat is 3.4- to 6.1-fold higher on a per-episode basis, and 5.0- to 10.4-fold higher on a monthly basis. Conclusions: Quantifying the AE cost impact of tazemetostat based on AE incidence rates estimated by MAIC analysis adjusts for population differences and allows for more direct cost savings comparisons when accounting for duration of exposure to different treatments. Patients with 3L+ R/R FL who are treated with tazemetostat are estimated to incur substantially lower AE-related costs compared with PI3Kis (idelalisib, duvelisib, and copanlisib). [Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqui Miot ◽  
Trudy Leong ◽  
Simbarashe Takuva ◽  
Andrew Parrish ◽  
Halima Dawood

Abstract Background Cryptococcal meningitis in HIV-infected patients in sub-Saharan Africa accounts for three-quarters of the global cases and 135,000 deaths per annum. Current treatment includes the use of fluconazole and amphotericin B. Recent evidence has shown that the synergistic use of flucytosine improves efficacy and reduces toxicity, however affordability and availability has hampered access to flucytosine in many countries. This study investigated the evidence and cost implications of introducing flucytosine as induction therapy for cryptococcal meningitis in HIV-infected adults in South Africa. Methods A decision analytic cost-effectiveness and cost impact model was developed based on survival estimates from the ACTA trial and local costs for flucytosine as induction therapy in HIV-infected adults with cryptococcal meningitis in a public sector setting in South Africa. The model considered five treatment arms: (a) standard of care; 2-week course amphotericin B/fluconazole (2wk AmBd/Flu), (b) 2-week course amphotericin B/flucytosine (2wk AmBd/5FC), (c) short course; 1-week course amphotericin B/flucytosine (1wk AmBd/5FC) (d) oral course; 2-week oral fluconazole/flucytosine (oral) and e) 1-week course amphotericin B/fluconazole (1wk AmBd/Flu). A sensitivity analysis was conducted on key variables. Results The highest total treatment costs are in the 2-week AmBd/5FC arm followed by the 2-week oral regimen, the 1-week AmBd/5FC, then standard of care with the lowest cost in the 1-week AmBd/Flu arm. Compared to the lowest cost option the 1-week flucytosine course is most cost-effective at USD119/QALY. The cost impact analysis shows that the 1-week flucytosine course has an incremental cost of just over USD293 per patient per year compared to what is currently spent on standard of care. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the model is most sensitive to life expectancy and hospital costs, particularly infusion costs and length of stay. Conclusions The addition of flucytosine as induction therapy for the treatment of cryptococcal meningitis in patients infected with HIV is cost-effective when it is used as a 1-week AmBd/5FC regimen. Savings could be achieved with early discharge of patients as well as a reduction in the price of flucytosine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document