Prohibition financial costs

It should be pointed out that if a reaction or process can currently be performed adequately in a conventional solvent, there is little motivation to switch over to a SCF as the cost could be prohibitive. Instead, financial constraints suggest that... 

While these regulations are of undoubted benefit to society and the environment at large, the time and costs associated with developing and registering new biocides is often financially prohibitive, much to the detriment of the overall marketplace and the cooling system operator. As a consequence, the water treatment industry has not seen much new or genuinely innovative biocidal technology in many years. There have been some new products, of course [2-(decylthio)ethanamine (DTEA)] is an example and is discussed later in Section 6.3.3], but much of what is currently offered are merely permutations and derivations of chemistries that have been available for perhaps 15 to 20 years or more. 

The cost of treating a single patient with glucocerebrosidase is several hundred thousand dollars per year, raising several concerns regarding compensation since insurance plans may refuse to authorize coverage. Such prohibitive cost often places a severe financial burden on patients in this country and makes enzyme replacement therapy in less-developed nations an impossibility. 

Economic considerations should include the financial impact on the organisation of the uninsured cost of accidents, the effect on insurance premiums, and the overall effect on the profitability of the organisation and the possible loss of production following the issue of Improvement and Prohibition Notices. 

These factors contribute to a significant increase in the technical resources that are needed, and therefore have a bearing on costs. The financial commitments may be of an order of magnitude that makes the option of a computer based system prohibitively expensive. 

If the existing level of protection is insufficient, a determination must be made as to whether the necessary level of protection can be achieved specifically, if the countermeasure can be physically implemented and whether the investment is cost effective. Cost effectiveness is based on the investment in the countermeasure versus the value of the asset. In some cases, investment in an expensive countermeasure may not be advisable because the life cycle of the asset is almost expired. Additionally, consideration should be given to whether other countermeasures may take priority for funding. Note that cost effective is a different value from cost prohibitive. A countermeasure is cost prohibitive if its cost exceeds available funding. Funding may exist for a countermeasure, but it may not be a sound financial decision to expend that money for little gain, making the countermeasure not cost effective. 

---