Search results

Since the mid‐1980s the major players in US health care have argued that costs and benefits should underlie the allocation of health care resources. Looks at 30 cost benefit studies taken from the medical literature and examines five of them in depth, using the “depth hermeneutical” approach advocated by Thompson (1990). Concludes that cost benefit studies are about not only the co‐ordination of interests but also the obscuring and exclusion of other interests.

The paper aims to present an approach to cost-benefit analysis with stochastic data. Determining the type and the values of alternative’s factors are probably the most important issue in this approach. Therefore, in the proposed approach, a competitive advantage model was built to measure the values of alternative’s factors. Then, a satisfactory cost-benefit analysis model with random data was proposed to evaluate the alternatives. The cost-benefit analysis of each alternative was carried out to obtain the real and satisfactory cost-benefit of the decision-maker.

This paper is orientationally expressed as a mathematical problem in which the optimization problem needs to analyze the approach. This paper is written based on uncertainty linear optimization. Optimization under uncertainty refers to this branch of optimization where there are uncertainties involved in the data or the model and is popularly known as stochastic optimization problems.

As was seen in the purpose part, in this paper, an approach is presented to cost-benefit analysis by the use of competitive advantage with stochastic data. In this regards, a stochastic optimization problem to assess competitive advantage is proposed. This optimization problem recognizes the values of alternative’s factors which is the most important step in cost-benefit analysis. An optimization problem is proposed to cost benefit analysis, as well.

To investigate different aspects of the proposed approach, a case study with random data of 21 economic projects was considered.

Cost–benefit analysis is a systematic approach to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives used to determine options which provide the best approach to achieving benefits while preserving savings. Cost–benefit analysis is related to cost-effectiveness analysis. Benefits and costs are expressed in monetary terms and are adjusted for the time value of money; all flows of benefits and costs over time are expressed on a common basis in terms of their net present value, regardless of whether they are incurred at different times. As seen the paper using competitive advantage tries to determine the values of alternative’s factor. As competitive advantage model analyze the advantages and disadvantages of alternatives, this paper by the use of this idea tries to determine the costs and benefits. Two stochastic optimization problems in the middle of this approach are proposed, which assess competitive advantage and cost–benefit analysis, respectively.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how cost benefit analysis can be used as a tool for financial‐based decision making in digital library project management.

Using theory and example, the author discusses the use of cost benefit analysis in cases where the financial value of costs versus benefits must be considered.

Cost benefit analysis is useful as a tool for making project decisions based on financial considerations. However, given the inherent subjectivity of valuation of intangibles, the outcome of a cost benefit analysis is not absolute.

This paper fills a gap in the digital library project management literature by applying a tool that has been traditionally used in large‐scale, governmental project plans to the world of library project management. In doing so, project managers in libraries will be better prepared to make decisions based on financial considerations.

The proposed contents of the planned Financial Services and Markets Act have been revealed in the draft bill (FSMB) that was introduced into Parliament on 17 June, 1999 and in various announcements by the government. On that basis, the Act is expected to require the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to have regard, in discharging its functions, to the economic impacts of the provisions it makes and to publish a cost‐benefit analysis (CBA) of proposed rules and general guidance with respect to the operation of rules. This paper describes the technical and organisational measures that the FSA is taking in order to fulfil the FSMB's requirements for CBA and considers the rationale for those requirements. The paper suggests that the case for undertaking cost‐benefit analysis rests on the dangers of interfering in markets without analysing the likely consequences in a rigorous and theoretically sound manner. The paper also reviews the (so far limited) experience of applying cost‐benefit analysis to financial regulation in the UK and suggests how difficulties in the assessment of the costs and benefits can be addressed, with a consequent increase in the value of financial regulation.

The purpose of this paper is to determine recidivism costs and benefits for 1,030 community-based male offenders enrolled in a domestic abuse program (DAP) compared to an untreated control group (n=1,030) matched on risk factors.

The study time frame was October 1, 2007-June 30, 2010 with reconvictions measured to December 31, 2010. Follow up averaged 19 months. Controls received standard community supervision, but no domestic violence group interventions. Follow up measures included court costs for violent and non-violent reconvictions; re-incarcerations and community-based orders costs measured in days.

Adjusting for time at risk, DAP enrollees had 29 percent fewer reconvictions, 46 percent fewer violent reconvictions, 34 percent fewer custodial days, but 23 percent more days on community orders. Costs: DAP enrollment avoided $2.52 M in custodial costs, but higher community correction costs (+$773 K) and court costs (+$5.8 K), reducing the DAP’s criminal justice system cost savings to $1.754 M ($8.92 M for the DAP group compared to $10.67M for controls). Cost benefits: when the 64 DAP program costs were deducted ($602 K), the net benefit to the New South Wales criminal justice system was $1,141 M, or $1,108 per enrollee, providing a net benefit/cost ratio of 2.89. If the DAP was completed, the net benefit was $1,820 per offender. These results compares favorably to economic evaluations of other community-based interventions.

Group interventions for domestically violent (DV) offenders can provide good investment returns to tax payers and government by reducing demand on scarce criminal justice system resources. The study provides insights into justice costs for DV offenders; a methodological template to determine cost benefits for offender programs and a contribution to cost-effective evidence-based crime reduction interventions.

Using a rigorous methodology, official court, custodial and community correction services costing data, this is the first Australian cost benefit analysis of a domestic violence group intervention, and the first to justify program expenditure by demonstrating substantial savings to the criminal justice system.

RECENT YEARS have witnessed the proliferation of applications of cost‐benefit analysis to public sector expenditure. Cost‐benefit analysis is a method of decision‐making which seeks to quantify the benefits that are obtainable from a given course of action, to express them in financial terms (or in terms of financial equivalents) and then to deduct the estimated social and financial costs so that the results of the course of action may be assessed, valued and expressed in monetary terms. Quantification of actual financial costs and benefits poses no difficulties, but it has been shown elsewhere that the quantification of social costs and benefits often poses considerable problems. Some social benefits, such as the value of time‐saving, can be quantified reasonably successfully (using, for example, financial equivalents of time saved in terms of average wages or average salaries of the individuals concerned), but others, such as the measurement of alleviation of suffering or the assessment of degrees of incapability in nursing care, have no adequate financial equivalents.