Indirect cost

A popular overall factor refinement, known as the Hand factor approach, uses a different factor to estimate overall costs for each class of equipment to cover all labor field materials, eg, piping, insulation, electrical, foundations, stmctures, and finishes and indirect costs, but not contingencies. Hand factors range from 4 for fractionating towers down to 2.5 for miscellaneous equipment. 

The manufacturing cost consists of direct, indirect, distribution, and fixed costs. Direct costs are raw materials, operating labor, production supervision, utihties, suppHes, repair, and maintenance. Typical indirect costs include payroll overhead, quaHty control, storage, royalties, and plant overhead, eg, safety, protection, personnel, services, yard, waste, environmental control, and other plant categories. However, environmental control costs are frequendy set up as a separate account and calculated direcdy. The principal distribution costs are packaging and shipping. Fixed costs, which are insensitive to production level, include depreciation, property taxes, rents, insurance, and, in some cases, interest expense. 

Economic Yield Both in a high-value protein separation and in a low-value commodity concentration, economic yield is vital. Economic yield is defined as the fraction of useful product entering the process that leaves it in salable form. The yield equations used in the industry focus on retention, so they deal only with direct losses through the membrane. These losses result both in direct (product not sold) and indirect costs from a waste stream whose disposal or subsequent use may be more expensive when it is contaminated by macrosolute. There are additional indirec t losses, mainly product left in the equipment, particularly that left adhering to the membrane. Costs of cleaning and disposal or this indirect loss, while hard to measure, are usually higher than the cost of product lost through the membrane. 

Each permit issued to a facility will be for a fixed term of up to 5 years. The new law establishes a permit fee whereby the state collects a fee from the permitted facility to cover reasonable direct and indirect costs of the permitting program. 

Beyond these indirect costs, there are future costs associated with new or more stringent variations of existing environmental legislation. We also need to recognize that all operations, especially those within complex industry sectors like petrochemicals, carry liabilities and exposures to potential catastrophic releases. Systems do fail for a variety of reasons, leading to unplarmed and sometimes innocent mistakes, that may result in third-party exposures for environmental damages or health risk exposures. These costs are related to legal fees, loss in consumer confidence, and subsequent losses in market shares for the products a company sells, as well as the clean-up associated with the spill or release. 

Tier 0 and Tier 1 costs are direct and indirect costs. They include the engineering, materials, labor, construction, contingency, etc., as well as waste-collection and transportation services (in many cases we simply transform an air pollution problem into a solid waste or wastewater problem that requires final treatment and disposal), raw-material consumption (increase or decrease), and production costs. Tier 2 and... 

These are addressed ind The Backfit Rule (10 CFR 50.109, and the NRC Safety Goal Policy Statement (SECY-89-102). The Backfit Rule applies not to the regulated industry, but to the NRC staff. It says that backfitting is required if it will result in substantial increase in safely and the direct and indirect costs of backfitting are justified. (This limitation does not apply if the modification is necessary for compliance with regulations). 

All rocket motor costs per unit, and therefore rocket proplnt costs, are most sensitive to the number of units being produced and to the number of different formulations mixed in a given time interval, by the same equipment, so that a direct comparson based only on processes or proplnt types are meaningless. There are also inherent difficulties in comparing NC base proplnts with composite propints. The former are made in government plants (some of which are operated by private industry) for the most part and so accounting for indirect costs (taxes, depreciation, insurance, and return on investment) cannot be compared to the situation... 

Clearly, the 8 billion attributed to environmental and social costs represents only a small portion of the actual costs. A more complete accounting of the Indirect costs also should include costs like the unrecorded losses of fish, wildlife, crops, and trees ... 

Households have direct and indirect costs. Direct household costs imply payments for transport to and from the health services, acconunodation for the accompanying relative, special buildings for disabled patients (e.g., changed bathroom), costs for diet, and the re-education, for instance new training after a paralysis. Private households also have to bear direct payments for user fees and drugs, which are an income of the providers. There must be clearing between these components of the COI to avoid double-counting. 

Indirect household costs summarize all lost opportunities. During the time of illness, a patient and a caring relative cannot work. Therefore, wage-earners lose salaries as well as the economy production force. Sick parents do not have time to take care of their children so that their education will suffer. Therefore, morbidity leads to indirect costs. The term socio-economic costs is used for the total of direct and indirect costs as both have to be shouldered by the society. 

The calculation of indirect COI can be based on different methodologies, and there is no generally accepted standard for all circumstances. The most common approach to calculate the indirect costs of illness is the human capital method. The loss of welfare of a society in the form of nongenerated commodities and services mainly depends on the lost working hours. The method assumes that if a person had... 

Consequently, there is no golden standard of calculating indirect Costs-of-Illness. The estimates based on different methodologies might differ significantly, and so will the total Costs-of-Illness of HIV/AIDS. It is possible to analyze the quality of studies whether all components (such as indirect costs of caring relatives etc.) have been included. Whether the methodology applied is best cannot always be determined. 

The health economic evaluation model and the COl model are closely related. The consumption of agents of production causes direct costs. Indirect costs are a monetary expression for the loss of economic wealth, that is, the impact of a health intervention is the reduction of indirect costs. The increase of health is reflected by the reduction of intangible costs. 

Most of the HIV-related economic studies calculate direct costs. However, the socioeconomic costs of HI V/AIDS are far greater. For instance, patients as well as family members and friends who provide care incur costs that are not related to payments but to lost income (indirect cost). This cost category includes the loss of wages for a wage earner, the loss of labor for a non-wage earner (e.g., pensioner, household), the loss of harvest for a farmer, and other losses (e.g., loss of education and chances for children of AIDS patients). Some studies address this issue. 

In addition to their calculation of direct costs in the USA, Scitovsky and Rice (1987) also determined indirect costs attributable to the loss of productivity, resulting from morbidity and premature mortality in the US. The authors used the human capital approach. Indirect costs were estimated to rise from US 3.9 billion in 1985 to US 7.0 billion in 1986 and US 55.6 bilhon in 1991 (Table 5). 

Hanvelt et al. (1994) estimated the nationwide indirect costs of mortality due to HIV/AIDS in Canada. A descriptive, population-based economic evaluation study was conducted. Data from Statistics Canada were used, which contained information about aU men aged 25-64 years for whom HIV/AIDS or another selected disease was listed as the underlying cause of death from 1987 to 1991. Based on the human capital approach, the present value of future earnings lost for men was calculated. The estimated total loss from 1987 to 1991 was US 2.11 billion, with an average cost of US 558,000 per death associated with HIV/AIDS. Future production loss due to HIV/AIDS was more than double during the period 1987 to 1991, from US 0.27 to US 0.60 billion. A more comprehensive update of this smdy was presented by Hanvelt et al. (1996). The same database and the same data section but for the calendar years 1987-1993 was used. The indirect cost of future production due to HIV/AIDS in Canada based on the human capital approach for that period was estimated to be US 3.28 billion. The authors also calculated the willingness-to-pay to prevent premature death due to HIV/AIDS, which was estimated based on... 

Study Country Study year Total annual indirect costs [ 1,000.000.000] Annual indirect costs per case... 

Indirect cost for patients in two AIDS clinics in Athens, Greece, based on the human capital approach were calculated by Papaevangelou et al. (1995). The authors estimated average annual indirect cost at US 11,774. Lifetime indirect cost per case was calculated at up to US 59,047. 

Based on prevalence estimates and mortality rates for the French AIDS epidemic, Lambert (1995) calculated indirect cost by using the human capital approach in 1992 as US 3.054 billion. Future indirect costs up to 2020 were simulated under different scenarios of the HIV prevalence. According to a pessimistic scenario, indirect cost would rise until 2010 (US 9.381 billion) and then keep almost stable until 2020 (US 9.069 billion). If the infection rate could be reduced, indirect costs would decrease to US 1.507 billion in 2020. 

Beside their calculation of direct costs, Stoll et al. (2002a) also examined indirect costs in a German sample of HIV-infected patients after the introduction of HAART. To emphasize the implications of different approaches of indirect costs, the authors determined both costs based on the human capital approach and costs calculated on the friction cost approach. They concluded that indirect costs based on the friction approach per patient in 1997 (US 2,421) add up to only one-tenth of the amount derived from the human capital approach (US 24,639). 

HIV/AIDS-induced mortality and morbidity of workers can result in significant economic loss to business, including direct cost due to increased insurance premiums paid by employers, costs due to increased benefits paid by employers, indirect costs due to lost time due to illness, lost and reduced productivity, and other costs, like cost to new training and hiring of staff. Famham and Gorsky (1994) used a Markov model to calculate the expected medical, disability, employee replacement, life insurance, and pension costs to a business firm in the US for an HIV-infected... 

---