Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 8233867

Learning quality.

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Ludvigsen. Learning quality.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8233867/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Lessons from international experience in controlling pharmaceutical expenditure. III: Regulating industry.

This is the third of three papers that review international policies to control spending on drugs and to improve the efficiency of drug use. This paper reviews policies regulating the supply of drugs, particularly licensing and reimbursement controls, price and profit regulation. Price and profit controls contain few incentives for improving cost effective use of drugs, and focus on cost containment and profitability of domestic industry. Carefully monitored economic evaluation could lead to improvements in efficiency and benefits to patients and the health care system.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-effectiveness of cancer screening in end-stage renal disease.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence suggests that persons with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) may be at increased risk for malignancy. The appropriateness of screening procedures in this population has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of hypothetical cancer screening programs in the population with ESRD compared with the general population. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis, employing the declining exponential approximation of life expectancy. Assumptions were put forth to bias the model in favor of cancer screening. Secondary comparisons were made between cancer screening and other interventions targeted to patients with ESRD. RESULTS: The costs per unit of survival benefit conferred by cancer screening were 1.6 to 19.3 times greater among patients with ESRD than in the general population, depending on age, sex, and race, and assumptions outlined herein. For persons with ESRD, the net gain in life expectancy from a typical cancer screening program was calculated to be 5 days or less. Similar survival gains could be obtained via a reduction of 0.02% or less in the baseline ESRD-related mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses suggest that routine cancer screening in the population with ESRD is a relatively inefficient allocation of financial resources. Direction of funds toward improving the quality of dialysis could attain such an objective at substantially lower cost. Furthermore, these findings highlight the importance of competing risks as a consideration in the evaluation of screening strategies and other interventions targeted to patients with ESRD and to other populations with chronic diseases associated with reduced survival.

Cost-Benefit Analysis