This case study considers the relative costs of conflict prevention and post-crisis intervention for Sudan during the period 2004-2018.

A survey of cost effectiveness methodologies used in the defense industry is presented and an application of cost effectiveness is developed. A breakdown in the level of the decisionmaking is made and follows the example of the Weapon System Effectiveness Industry Advisory Committee. Examples of cost effectiveness methodologies at each decisionmaking level are shown.

published_or_final_version / Business / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

published_or_final_version / Community Medicine / Master / Master of Public Health

Background Equity is rarely included in health economic evaluations, partly because the techniques for addressing equity have been inadequate. Since 2013 health economists have developed two competing health economic technologies: distributional costeffectiveness analysis (DCEA) and extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA). Both technologies represent a significant advance, and each provides a framework to address equity considerations in cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods A scoping literature review was used to identify and synthesise the relevant literature on incorporating equity concerns into economic evaluations. A second focused review identified literature which discussed or applied DCEA and ECEA. Key themes in the literature were identified using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Results The review revealed three key areas of difference between DCEA and ECEA: First, the analysis of trade-offs between improving health and reducing inequity; second, the analysis of financial impacts of health policies; and third, the incorporation of opportunity costs. ECEA can analyse financial risk protection while DCEA can analyse opportunity costs and trade-offs between improving equity and reducing health. ECEA is designed for low- and middle-income countries, whereas DCEA is better suited to developed health systems such as the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. To date, there have been 27 studies using ECEA and five studies using DCEA. Future developments for DCEA and ECEA include incorporating alternative methods to simplify the data requirements for the techniques, providing methods to assist decision makers to clarify their equity concerns, and improving the presentation of outcomes to make them accessible to non-specialists. Conclusions DCEA and ECEA are both economic frameworks which address equity considerations in cost-effectiveness analysis. This study examines and compares these two techniques in order to assist policymakers and decision makers to determine which of the two methods is best able to address their specific needs for their particular circumstances.

by Chan Fuk-cheung and Mok Yick-fan, Danny. / Thesis (M.B.A.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1988. / Bibliography: leaves 80-81.

Cost behavior analysis was used to operationalize higher education cost factors in the analysis of instructional costs of three baccalaureate nursing programs in one state university system. Higher education cost factors were conceptualized by Robinson, Ray and Turk (1977) to be three; volume, decision, and environmental. The 30 variables derived from the three factors were the independent variables used in this study to explore their influence on the dependent variables of cost per student credit hour and cost per student contact hour. Several data sources were used, including a questionnaire which elicited program administrator's perceptions of the relative importance of the three factors to their instructional costs. Instructional costs were partitioned into direct and indirect costs. The data were analyzed in three phases to describe the relative influence of the independent variables on instructional costs within programs, among programs, relative to their respective institutions, and to their respective classification of institutions. The findings suggest that volume and decision factors more strongly influence costs than do environmental factors. The mix of volume and decision factors influencing costs differed for the three programs. In general, the most influential volume factors on costs were the number and frequency of course and class offerings. The most influential of the decision variables was student-faculty ratio and faculty rank mix. Higher full-time-equivalent enrollments and higher student credit hour production did not correspond to lower instructional costs, largely because of intervening decision factor variables. All three nursing programs were more costly per student credit hour when indexed to the average instructional expenditures for their respective universities. However, when the nursing program costs were indexed to the average instructional expenditures per full-time-equivalent enrollments of their respective institutional classifications, all three nursing programs were lower than the average. The model of instructional cost analysis used in this modified case study proved to be effective in identifying sources of higher costs within programs and variations among the programs. For student contact hour intensive programs such as nursing, student contact hour, as opposed to the student credit hour is recommended as the more sensitive measure of direct instructional costs.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.