Academic literature on the topic 'Cost benefit analysis'

"Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration from the Naval Postgraduate School, December 2007."<br>Advisor(s): Gates, William R. ; Franck, Raymond E. "December 2007." "MBA professional report"--Cover. Description based on title screen as viewed on January 11, 2008. Includes bibliographical references (p. 51). Also available in print.

MBA Professional Report<br>Investing for one's future is a concern for the majority of military retirees. Service members have more choices than their civilian counterparts when planning for retirement. One alternative available to military members is the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), which allows retirees to provide for their family's welfare in the event of their untimely death. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the cost effectiveness of SBP in comparison to other insurance or investment options. This paper provides an overview of SBP and possible alternatives. Additionally, a mathematical model has been constructed that conducts a cost-benefit analysis of SBP and alternatives to determine the most beneficial course of action for future retirees. Our major conclusion is that SBP is the most attractive available option only if the military member expects to live for a sufficiently long period and also expects his (or her) spouse to outlive him by a significant amount. However, this result is sensitive to rate of inflation.

Thesis (M.S.)--West Virginia University, 1999.<br>Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains xii, 152 p. : ill. (some col.) Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 110-113).

The Cooperative Extension System has focused on nutrition education for low-income families for approximately 29 years via the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). In response to the need for a comprehensive economic evaluation of EFNEP, Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) was awarded a grant from the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Services, United States Department of Agriculture (CSREES, USDA) to conduct a cost benefit analysis (CBA) of nutrition education programs, with emphasis on EFNEP. Virginia EFNEP served as the pilot program to test the evaluation procedure. This study is a part of the CBA of Virginia EFNEP. The purpose is to calculate the indirect tangible benefits derived from participation in EFNEP. The indirect tangible benefits are classified as 1) delaying productivity loss due to mortality and 2) avoiding productivity loss due to morbidity. This study also uses sensitivity analysis to evaluate the effects of two critical assumptions pertaining to retention of dietary behaviors and to incidence rate of diseases in the low-income population. Finally, the discount rate is analyzed via sensitivity calculations. There were two major conclusions drawn from this study. First, the indirect benefits accounted for more than $1 million of the total benefit generate by EFNEP. Second, the sensitivity analyses support the positive outcome (i. e., positive return on every dollar invested) derived from the CBA of Virginia EFNEP.<br>Master of Science

Thesis (M.S. in Management) Naval Postgraduate School, December 1996.<br>Thesis advisor(s): Gordon Louvau, David F. Matthews, D. Moses. "December 1996." Includes bibliographical references (p. 129-131). Also available online.

Bedside terminals are an approach to data entry that is maximally effective, due to capture at the point of care, to meet the challenges facing nursing today in relation to information documentation. The purpose of this evaluation research study was to determine if bedside terminals are justifiable though a cost-benefit analysis.The General Systems Theory, which was formulated by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in the late 1920's, was the theoretical framework used for this study (Putt, 1978).A non-standardized checklist of factors was developed by the researcher to evaluate the associated costs. related to bedside terminals. The factors included patient census, acuity, lost charges, reimbursement denials, and medication errors.A convenience sample of one surgical nursing unit from a large midwestern metropolitan hospital was chosen for data collection. Based on the literature, monetary values werearbitrarily assigned to the factors. Costs were assigned based on projected figures for bedside terminal implementation in 1993 obtained from the literature. All participants were notified of rights as human subjects and the confidentiality of this study.This study was significant because the results will be added to the limited information on the justification of bedside terminals using a cost-benefit analysis available in the current literature.Projections of bedside terminal costs were limited due to the unwillingness of bedside terminal vendors to provide current costs to compare against the quantitative benefits collected in this study. Reimbursement denials were not obtained due to the accounting practices of the institution. Due to these limitations, a prospective rather than the retrospective approach used in this study for data collection would be recommended to ensure obtaining information on all data elements. The results of this study should be considered when contemplating purchase of bedside terminals. Based on the results of this cost-benefit analysis study, the purchase of bedside terminals is cost-justified. A favorable return on investment of a one year payback was obtained.<br>School of Nursing

Bedside computer terminals are an approach to data entry that is maximally effective to meet the challenges facing nursing today and process hospital information. The purpose of this evaluation research study was to determine if bedside computers are justifiable through a cost-benefit analysis. Costbenefit analysis was done to determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs involved in implementing a bedside computer system.The General Systems Theory formulated by Ludwig von Betalanaffy was the theoretical framework utilized for this project. A non-standardized checklist of factors was developed from the literature review. The factors included were patient census, acuity, lost charges, reimbursement denials, and medicine errors. Interrater reliability was established by a panel ofthree experts on cost-benefit analysis.A convenience sample of one 42 bed nursing unit from a large metropolitan Midwestern hospital was chosen for data retrieval. One month of financial data was analyzed for this study. The procedures for the protection of human subjects were followed.The study showed that bedside computers are costjustified.-based on the results of the cost-benefit analysis. The projection of cost versus benefits realized from the bedside terminals was limited due to the unwillingness of vendors to share actual cost information. Reimbursement denials were unable to be retrieved because of the financial accounting practices of the institution chosen.A prospective approach rather than the retrospective approach utilized in this study may produce the data necessary for reimbursement denials. Recognizing its limitations, the results of this study should be considered when contemplating the purchase of bedside terminals or the increasingly more advanced technology of hand-held and voice activated computers.<br>School of Nursing

This study examined if physician assistants (PAs) are cost-beneficial to employers. In an era of cost accountability, questions arise about whether a visit to a PA for an episode of care differs from a visit to a physician, and if PAs erode their cost-effectiveness by the manner in which they manage patients. Four common acute medical conditions seen by PAs and physicians within a large health maintenance organization were identified to study. An episode approach was undertaken to identify all laboratory, imaging, medication and provider costs for these diagnoses. Over 12,700 medical office visits were analyzed and assigned to each type of provider and medical department. Patient variables included age, gender, and health status. A multivariate analysis identified significant cost differences in each cohort of patients. In every condition managed by PAs, the total cost of the visit was less than that of a physician in the same department. This was significant for episodes of shoulder tendinitis, otitis media, and urinary tract infections. In no instance were PAs statistically different from physicians in use of laboratory and imaging costs. In each instance the total cost of the episode was less when treated by a PA. Sometimes PAs ordered fewer laboratory tests than physicians. There were no differences in the rate of return visits for a diagnosis between physicians and PAs. Patient differences were held constant for age, gender, and health status. This study affirms that PAs are not only cost-effective from a labor standpoint but are also cost-beneficial to those who employ them. In most cases, they order resources for diagnosis and treatment in a manner similar to physicians for an episode of care, but the cost of an episode of an illness is more economical overall when the P A delivers the care. This study validates the federal policy of support for primary care P A education and suggests that PA employment should be expanded in many sectors of the health care system. These findings and the results of this cost-benefit model are evidence of its validity in predicting health care costs.

Over the last decade, six major earthquakes that occurred in Turkey dramatically demonstrated the poor performance of the buildings that were designed and constructed far from Turkish seismic code&rsquo<br>s requirements. The Marmara region, where most of the population and industry is located, is in the active seismic zone. With the rising cost of damages due to earthquakes, the necessity of the cost-benefit analysis for various rehabilitation strategies used in existing buildings has become a major concern for the decision makers who are in the position of making decisions on the building rehabilitation This study evaluates the performance of two different rehabilitation strategies applied to two five-story reinforced concrete buildings and assesses their cost-benefit analyses. These buildings were chosen to be representative of the typical residential To carry out the structural analysis of the buildings, three-dimensional models of the buildings were developed using SAP2000 [6]. Two alternative strengthening methods, insertion of reinforced concrete shear walls and application of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers (CFRP) on hallow clay tile infill walls, were used for both of the buildings. While modeling infill walls strengthened with CFRP, two specific modeling attempts proposed by the researchers at Middle East Technical University were used. Pushover analyses were performed to evaluate seismic performance of the buildings. The Life Safety criterion was chosen as the rehabilitation objective. The global and component response acceptability limits were checked and the cost-benefit analysis was performed in order to determine the most attractive rehabilitation alternative. The results and comparisons given here illustrated that strengthening with shear wall had the most significant improvement on the seismic performance and cost effectiveness of the case study buildings. Outcomes of this study are only applicable to the buildings employed here and are bound by the assumptions made, approximations used and parameters considered in this study. The findings cannot be generalized for the buildings rehabilitated with CFRP due to lack of the consistent models for CFRP application. More research needs to be conducted to provide solid guidelines and reliable models applicable to the CFRP rehabilitated infill walls.

Cost-benefit analysis is an economic analysis tool that can be used to support public decision making, when there are several mutually exclusive alternatives being considered. It compares the monetary value of the benefits resulting from a specific project or policy with the costs accrued by it. However, it would appear that it is currently used mainly for investment projects, and not for analyzing public services. This thesis is a literature study on the use of cost-benefit analysis in the public sector, with a focus on public service provision. The main objective of this study is to either verify or falsify the research gap regarding the initial assumption that there seems to be no existing research on how common the use of cost-benefit analysis is in public service provision. Other objectives include finding out how cost-benefit analysis can be used in evaluating the socio-economic impact of public decision making, and what kind of examples can be found on its applications in the public sector. The thesis presents the theoretical framework of cost-benefit analysis, including the basic steps in the typical cost-benefit analysis process, as well as its historical background and criticism regarding it. The alternative methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-minimization analysis are discussed briefly as well. Some of the leading institutions regarding the research and development of cost-benefit analysis methods are also presented. The Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis is one such institution. It publishes the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, which is the only journal devoted exclusively to cost-benefit analysis. In addition, the European Commission’s Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis applies the international best practice on the use of cost-benefit analysis in investment-type projects. Some comments in various publications state that cost-benefit analysis is indeed underused and often even misused in public decision making, and that society would benefit if it was used to a greater extent. The literature study concludes with the analysis of two case studies. In the first study, a cost-benefit analysis was performed on the services of the Finnish Meteorological Institute, and it was found to produce approximately five times as much benefits to the society compared to its costs. The second study examined the use of cost-benefit analysis in Finnish place-making policies, and discovered that it was applied incorrectly by public officials in this case. The research gap is verified, as there does not seem to be any comprehensive research on how common the use of cost-benefit analysis is in public service provision as a whole. However, some publications do hint that it is underused in public decision making. Thus, there is a need for further research on its use in public service provision<br>Kustannus-hyötyanalyysi on taloustieteellinen työkalu, jota voidaan käyttää tukemaan julkista päätöksentekoa, kun arvioitavana on useita toisensa poissulkevia vaihtoehtoja. Siinä vertaillaan jonkin projektin tai politiikan seurauksena syntyviä rahassa mitattuja hyötyjä sen aiheuttamiin kustannuksiin nähden. Tällä hetkellä sitä tosin ilmeisesti käytetään lähinnä vain investointiprojekteihin, eikä julkisten palveluiden analysointiin. Tämä kandidaatintyö on kirjallisuuskatsaus kustannus-hyötyanalyysin käytöstä julkisella sektorilla, keskittyen julkisiin palveluihin. Tutkimuksen päätavoitteena on osoittaa joko todeksi tai vääräksi tutkimusaukko koskien sitä alkuolettamusta, että kustannus-hyötyanalyysin käytön yleisyydestä julkisen sektorin palvelutuotannossa ei vaikuta olevan olemassaolevaa tutkimusta. Muihin tavoitteisiin kuuluu selvittää, että miten kustannus-hyötyanalyysiä voidaan käyttää julkisen päätöksenteon sosioekonomisen vaikuttavaan arviointiin, ja että minkälaisia esimerkkejä sen käytöstä löytyy julkiseen sektoriin liittyen. Kandidaatintyössä esitetään kustannus-hyötyanalyysin teoreettinen viitekehys, sisältäen tyypillisen kustannus-hyötyanalyysiprosessin vaiheet, sekä sen historiallista taustaa ja kritiikkiä. Kustannus-hyötyanalyysin vaihtoehtoisista menetelmistä esitellään lyhyesti kustannus-vaikuttavuusanalyysi, kustannus-utiliteettianalyysi ja kustannusten minimointianalyysi. Työssä käsitellään myös joitakin johtavia instituutioita kustannus-hyötyanalyysin menetelmien tutkimukseen ja kehitykseen liittyen. Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis -järjestö on yksi tällainen instituutio. Se julkaisee Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis -nimistä lehteä, joka on ainoa täysin kustannus-hyötyanalyysille omistettu lehti. Tämän lisäksi Euroopan komissio on julkaissut kustannus-hyötyanalyysiä koskevan oppaan, joka hyödyntää parhaita kansainvälisiä käytäntöjä kustannus-hyötyanalyysin soveltamisesta investointityyppisissä projekteissa. Erinäisissä julkaisuissa esitettyjen kommenttien mukaan kustannus-hyötyanalyysiä käytetään liian vähän julkisessa päätöksenteossa, ja joskus sitä on sovellettu siinä myös väärin. Näiden kommenttien mukaan yhteiskunta hyötyisi, jos sitä käytettäisiin laajemmin. Kirjallisuuskatsaus päätetään kahden case-tutkimuksen analyysillä. Ensimmäisessä tutkimuksessa oli suoritettu kustannus-hyötyanalyysi Ilmatieteen laitoksen palveluihin liittyen, ja niiden oli todettu tuovan yhteiskunnalle noin viisinkertaisen hyödyn niiden kustannuksiin nähden. Toinen tutkimus oli käsitellyt kustannus-hyötyanalyysin käyttöä Suomen alueellistamispolitiikassa, ja siinä oli selvinnyt, että virkamiehet olivat soveltaneet kustannus-hyötyanalyysiä väärin tässä tapauksessa. Tutkimusaukko on vahvistettu, sillä kustannus-hyötyanalyysin käytön yleisyydestä julkisessa palvelutuotannossa ei vaikuta olevan mitään kattavaa tutkimusta. Jotkin julkaisut kuitenkin vihjaavat, että se olisi alikäytetty julkisessa päätöksenteossa. Näin ollen on vielä tarvetta lisätutkimukselle sen käytöstä julkisessa palvelutuotannossa