Cost-benefit analysis programs

Economic evaluation compares costs and consequences of alternative health care treatments or programs (Drummond et al. 2005). In one form of economic evaluation, cost-benefit analysis, all costs and consequences are valued in monetary terms. However, in health care it is much more common to use cost-effectiveness analysis, where the difference in cost between alternatives is compared with the difference in outcomes measured in units such as life years gained or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. 

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS COMPARISON OF PROGRAMS WITH DIFFERENT OUTCOMES... 

A cost-benefit analysis relates the cost of implementing a program to the reduction in social costs realized by the program, A convenient and frequently used end-product of such an analysis is the so-called benefit/cost ratio. Basically, this ratio is the reduction in social costs (benefits) realized by the project over a fixed number of years (customarily 20 years) divided by project costs over the same time period... 

When determining which method of economic analysis she should use, she eliminated cost-minimization analysis because the treatment alternatives (service versus no service) will not result in equivalent outcomes. A cost-effectiveness analysis would not be appropriate because she is only interested in one particular program. A cost-utility analysis is also not appropriate because quality of life, while included in the project, is not the focus of her project. A cost-benefit analysis could be appropriate. A cost-benefit analysis requires that both the interventions and outcomes be valued in monetary units. She can determine the direct medical and/or nonmedical costs for each patient from data captured by her HMO. The HMO is very interested in costs, both those to implement the service and those it may save as a result. Cynthia decides that the most understandable analysis to present to the HMO is a cost-benefit analysis. 

Hence risk assessment criteria must be established so that there can be developed a national priority list of the hazardous sites that require remedial action. EPA has adopted the Mitre Model for assessing the risks and ranking waste sites. There is some criticism of this model, and there are a number of as yet unanswered questions about its application. Formal cost/benefit analysis will not be used, and risk assessment will be on a case-by-case basis. EPA will thus be developing its knowledge base and procedures as it carries out the program. 

Cost/Benefit Analysis Since any change or modification in the process requires additional capital, operation, and maintenance cost, a cost analysis must be included to help management make informed decisions. These factors may include cost avoidance, enhanced productivity, and decreased liability risks from the pollution prevention effort. Federal and state agencies have provided matching grants to small industries to implement source reduction programs. 

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a method that allows for the identification, measurement, and comparison of the benefits and costs of a program or treatment alternative. The benefits realized from a program or treatment alternative are compared with the costs of providing it. Both the costs and the benefits are measured and converted into equivalent dollars in the year in which they wUl occur. Future costs and benefits are discounted or reduced to their current value. 

Anderson, Jr., Robert J. William N. Lanen, and Carson E. Agnew, "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Selected Technology Utilization Office Programs", a report to NASA. Mathtech, Inc., Princeton, N.J., November 7, 1977. 

The simulations revealed that the sustainability of a control program mainly depends on the duration of application of a particular control scheme (Figure 8.5). Thus, a minimum number of years is needed to eradicate the disease. Obviously, the higher the frequency of baiting, the faster eradication can be achieved, but a higher frequency is also more expensive. A detailed cost-benefit analysis of different control schemes is included in Hansen et al. (2001, 2003). The strategy applied in the field trial, which was based on the conceptual model described earlier, never was sustainable, no matter how long it was run. 

Establishing and implementing techniques that involve risk analysis, cost, cost-benefit analysis, work sampling, loss rate, and similar methodologies, for periodic and systematic evaluation of hazard control and hazard control program effectiveness. 

An effective safety leader is adept at aligning top management s values so that safety is priority munber one. This might mean you will need to provide a cost/benefit analysis of your safety program. In other words, in order for top management to adopt a safety first philosophy, you may need to produce a good retm n on their safety investment (see ROI for Your Safety Program minor tab for more information). 

The systematic application of policies, practices, and resources to the assessment and control of risk affecting human health and safety and the environment, which is also combined with economic, political, legal, and ethical considerations to make decisions. Hazard, risk, and cost-benefit analysis are used to support development of risk reduction options, program objectives, and prioritization of issues and resources. Risk Management Plan (RMP)... 

A popular way to justify business expenditures is comparing expenditures to the benefits achieved using financial terms. In cost-benefit analysis, the first task is to estimate the dollar values of all benefits and costs for a program. The program may be safety. Then one can compare the costs to the benefits. It is difficult to convert all costs and benefits to quantitative or financial terms. One may have to create some methods for converting qualitative items to costs. If benefits exceed costs, a program has financial value. If costs exceed benefits, the program is questionable. 

Radon—Requires the USEPA to withdraw its proposed radon standard and to set a new standard in 4 years, after NAS conducts a risk assessment and a study of risk-reduction benefits associated with various mitigation measures. Authorizes cost/benefit analysis for radon, taking into account the costs and benefits of indoor air radon control measures. States or water systems obtaiiving USEPA approval of a multimedia radon program in accordance with USEPA guidelines would only have to comply with a weaker "alternative maximum contaminant level" for radon that would be based on the contribution of outdoor radon to indoor air. 

Do a cost benefit analysis on the options available. It is unlikely that any package will exactly meet yoiu requirements but remember that having a program written is likely to be several orders of magnitude more expensive than bu)dng one off the shelf. A decision may have to be made as to whether being able to do exactly what is required is worth the extra cost. 

Cost-benefit analysis. Compares the value of a program s net impacts on final outcomes, expressed in monetary terms, with the extra costs associated with implementing the program, also expressed in monetary terms. 

---