Benefit cost analysis applied to behavioral and engineering safety countermeasures in San Francisco, California

The state of the practice in safety has advanced rapidly in recent years with the emergence of new tools and processes for improving selection of the most cost-effective safety countermeasures. However, many challenges prevent fair and objective comparisons of countermeasures applied across safety disciplines (e.g. engineering, emergency services, and behavioral measures). These countermeasures operate at different spatial scales, are funded often by different financial sources and agencies, and have associated costs and benefits that are difficult to estimate. This research proposes a methodology by which both behavioral and engineering safety investments are considered and compared in a specific local context. The methodology involves a multi-stage process that enables the analyst to select countermeasures that yield high benefits to costs, are targeted for a particular project, and that may involve costs and benefits that accrue over varying spatial and temporal scales. The methodology is illustrated using a case study from the Geary Boulevard Corridor in San Francisco, California. The case study illustrates that: 1) The methodology enables the identification and assessment of a wide range of safety investment types at the project level; 2) The nature of crash histories lend themselves to the selection of both behavioral and engineering investments, requiring cooperation across agencies; and 3) The results of the cost-benefit analysis are highly sensitive to cost and benefit assumptions, and thus listing and justification of all assumptions is required. It is recommended that a sensitivity analyses be conducted when there is large uncertainty surrounding cost and benefit assumptions.

The importance of environmental issues and costs in Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for highway projects

Sustainability has been increasingly recognised as an integral part of highway infrastructure development. In practice however, the fact that financial return is still a project’s top priority for many, environmental aspects tend to be overlooked or considered as a burden, as they add to project costs. Sustainability and its implications have a far-reaching effect on each project over time. Therefore, with highway infrastructure’s long-term life span and huge capital demand, the consideration of environmental cost/ benefit issues is more crucial in life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA). To date, there is little in existing literature studies on viable estimation methods for environmental costs. This situation presents the potential for focused studies on environmental costs and issues in the context of life-cycle cost analysis. This paper discusses a research project which aims to integrate the environmental cost elements and issues into a conceptual framework for life cycle costing analysis for highway projects. Cost elements and issues concerning the environment were first identified through literature. Through questionnaires, these environmental cost elements will be validated by practitioners before their consolidation into the extension of existing and worked models of life-cycle costing analysis (LCCA). A holistic decision support framework is being developed to assist highway infrastructure stakeholders to evaluate their investment decision. This will generate financial returns while maximising environmental benefits and sustainability outcome.

Whole of life cycle cost analysis in bridge rehabilitation

The report presents a methodology for whole of life cycle cost analysis of alternative treatment options for bridge structures, which require rehabilitation. The methodology has been developed after a review of current methods and establishing that a life cycle analysis based on a probabilistic risk approach has many advantages including the essential ability to consider variability of input parameters. The input parameters for the analysis are identified as initial cost, maintenance, monitoring and repair cost, user cost and failure cost. The methodology utilizes the advanced simulation technique of Monte Carlo simulation to combine a number of probability distributions to establish the distribution of whole of life cycle cost. In performing the simulation, the need for a powerful software package, which would work with spreadsheet program, has been identified. After exploring several products on the market, @RISK software has been selected for the simulation. In conclusion, the report presents a typical decision making scenario considering two alternative treatment options.

Transaction Cost Analysis of PPP Risk Share

PPP (Public Private Partnerships) is a new operation mode of infrastructure projects, which usually undergo long periods and have various kinds of risks in technology, market, politics, policy, finance, society, natural conditions and cooperation. So the government and the private agency should establish the risk-sharing mechanism to ensure the successful implementation of the project. As an important branch of the new institutional economics, transaction cost economics and its analysis method have been proved to be beneficial to the proper allocation of risks between the two parts in PPP projects and the improvement of operation efficiency of PPP risk-sharing mechanism. This paper analyzed the transaction cost of the projects risk-sharing method and the both risk carriers. It pointed out that the risk-sharing method of PPP projects not only reflected the spirit of cooperation between public sector and private agency, but also minimized the total transaction cost of the risk sharing mechanism itself. Meanwhile, the risk takers had to strike a balance between the beforehand cost and the afterwards cost so as to control the cost of risk management. The paper finally suggested three ways which might be useful to reduce the transaction cost: to choose appropriate type of contract of PPP risk-sharing mechanism, to prevent information asymmetry and to establish mutual trust between the two participants.

Thoracoscopic scoliosis surgery – a cheaper option? A cost analysis of 189 consecutive cases

INTRODUCTION: Increasing health care costs, limited resources and increased demand makes cost effective and cost-efficient delivery of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) management paramount. Rising implant costs in deformity correction surgery have prompted analysis of whether high implant densities are justified. The objective of this study was to analyse the costs of thoracoscopic scoliosis surgery, comparing initial learning curve costs with those of the established technique and to the costs involved in posterior instrumented fusion from the literature. METHODS: 189 consecutive cases from April 2000 to July 2011 were assessed with a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Information was gathered from a prospective database covering perioperative factors, clinical and radiological outcomes, complications and patient reported outcomes. The patients were divided into three groups to allow comparison; 1. A learning curve cohort, 2. An intermediate cohort and 3. A third cohort of patients, using our established technique. Hospital finance records and implant manufacturer figures were corrected to 2013 costs. A literature review of AIS management costs and implant density in similar curve types was performed. RESULTS: The mean pre-op Cobb angle was 53°(95%CI 0.4) and was corrected postop to mean 22.9°(CI 0.4). The overall complication rate was 20.6%, primarily in the first cohort, with a rate of 5.6% in the third cohort. The average total costs were $46,732, operating room costs of $10,301 (22.0%) and ICU costs of $4620 (9.8%). The mean number of screws placed was 7.1 (CI 0.04) with a single rod used for each case giving average implant costs of $14,004 (29.9%). Comparison of the three groups revealed higher implant costs as the technique evolved to that in use today, from $13,049 in Group 1 to $14577 in Group 3 (P<0.001). Conversely operating room costs reduced from $10,621 in Group 1 to $7573 (P<0.001) in Group 3. ICU stay was reduced from an average of 1.2 to 0 days. In-patient stay was significantly (P=0.006) lower in Groups 2 and 3 (5.4 days) than Group 1 (5.9 days) (i.e. a reduction in cost of approximately $6,140). CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of our thoracoscopic anterior scoliosis correction has resulted in an increase in the number of levels fused and reduction in complication rate. Implant costs have risen as a result, however, there has been a concurrent decrease in those costs generated by operating room use, ICU and in-patient stay with increasing experience. Literature review of equivalent curve types treated posteriorly shows similar perioperative factors but higher implant density, 69-83% compared to the 50% in this study. Thoracoscopic Scoliosis surgery presents a low density, reliable, efficient and effective option for selected curves. A cost analysis of Thoracoscopic Scoliosis Surgery using financial records and a prospectively collected database of all patients since 2000, demonstrating a clear cost advantage compared to equivalent posterior instrumentation and fusion.

Nation & internation practices in decision support tools in road asset management

This document provides a review of international and national practices in investment decision support tools in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying analytic frameworks, evaluation methodologies and criteria adopted by current tools. Emphasis was also given to how current approaches support Triple Bottom Line decision-making. Benefit Cost Analysis and Multiple Criteria Analysis are principle methodologies in supporting decision-making in Road Asset Management. The complexity of the applications shows significant differences in international practices. There is continuing discussion amongst practitioners and researchers regarding to which one is more appropriate in supporting decision-making. It is suggested that the two approaches should be regarded as complementary instead of competitive means. Multiple Criteria Analysis may be particularly helpful in early stages of project development, say strategic planning. Benefit Cost Analysis is used most widely for project prioritisation and selecting the final project from amongst a set of alternatives. Benefit Cost Analysis approach is useful tool for investment decision-making from an economic perspective. An extension of the approach, which includes social and environmental externalities, is currently used in supporting Triple Bottom Line decision-making in the road sector. However, efforts should be given to several issues in the applications. First of all, there is a need to reach a degree of commonality on considering social and environmental externalities, which may be achieved by aggregating the best practices. At different decision-making level, the detail of consideration of the externalities should be different. It is intended to develop a generic framework to coordinate the range of existing practices. The standard framework will also be helpful in reducing double counting, which appears in some current practices. Cautions should also be given to the methods of determining the value of social and environmental externalities. A number of methods, such as market price, resource costs and Willingness to Pay, are found in the review. The use of unreasonable monetisation methods in some cases has discredited Benefit Cost Analysis in the eyes of decision makers and the public. Some social externalities, such as employment and regional economic impacts, are generally omitted in current practices. This is due to the lack of information and credible models. It may be appropriate to consider these externalities in qualitative forms in a Multiple Criteria Analysis. Consensus has been reached in considering noise and air pollution in international practices. However, Australia practices generally omitted these externalities. Equity is an important consideration in Road Asset Management. The considerations are either between regions, or social groups, such as income, age, gender, disable, etc. In current practice, there is not a well developed quantitative measure for equity issues. More research is needed to target this issue. Although Multiple Criteria Analysis has been used for decades, there is not a generally accepted framework in the choice of modelling methods and various externalities. The result is that different analysts are unlikely to reach consistent conclusions about a policy measure. In current practices, some favour using methods which are able to prioritise alternatives, such as Goal Programming, Goal Achievement Matrix, Analytic Hierarchy Process. The others just present various impacts to decision-makers to characterise the projects. Weighting and scoring system are critical in most Multiple Criteria Analysis. However, the processes of assessing weights and scores were criticised as highly arbitrary and subjective. It is essential that the process should be as transparent as possible. Obtaining weights and scores by consulting local communities is a common practice, but is likely to result in bias towards local interests. Interactive approach has the advantage in helping decision-makers elaborating their preferences. However, computation burden may result in lose of interests of decision-makers during the solution process of a large-scale problem, say a large state road network. Current practices tend to use cardinal or ordinal scales in measure in non-monetised externalities. Distorted valuations can occur where variables measured in physical units, are converted to scales. For example, decibels of noise converts to a scale of -4 to +4 with a linear transformation, the difference between 3 and 4 represents a far greater increase in discomfort to people than the increase from 0 to 1. It is suggested to assign different weights to individual score. Due to overlapped goals, the problem of double counting also appears in some of Multiple Criteria Analysis. The situation can be improved by carefully selecting and defining investment goals and criteria. Other issues, such as the treatment of time effect, incorporating risk and uncertainty, have been given scant attention in current practices. This report suggested establishing a common analytic framework to deal with these issues.

International practices in investment decision making in road sector

This document provides the findings of an international review of investment decision-making practices in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying the strategic objectives of agencies in road asset management, establishing and understanding criteria different organisations adopted and ascertaining the exact methodologies used by different countries and international organisations. Road assets are powerful drivers of economic development and social equity. They also have significant impacts on the natural and man-made environment. The traditional definition of asset management is “A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading and operating physical assets cost effectively. It combines engineering principles with sound business practices and economic theory and it provides tools to facilitate a more organised, logical approach to decision-making” (US Dept. of Transportation, 1999). In recent years, the concept has been broadened to cover the complexity of decision making, based on a wider variety of policy considerations as well as social and environmental issues rather than is covered by Benefit-Cost analysis and pure technical considerations. Current international practices are summarised in table 2. It was evident that Engineering-economic analysis methods are well advanced to support decision-making. A range of tools available supports performance predicting of road assets and associated cost/benefit in technical context. The need for considering triple plus one bottom line of social, environmental and economic as well as political factors in decision-making is well understood by road agencies around the world. The techniques used to incorporate these however, are limited. Most countries adopt a scoring method, a goal achievement matrix or information collected from surveys. The greater uncertainty associated with these non-quantitative factors has generally not been taken into consideration. There is a gap between the capacities of the decision-making support systems and the requirements from decision-makers to make more rational and transparent decisions. The challenges faced in developing an integrated decision making framework are both procedural and conceptual. In operational terms, the framework should be easy to be understood and employed. In philosophical terms, the framework should be able to deal with challenging issues, such as uncertainty, time frame, network effects, model changes, while integrating cost and non-cost values into the evaluation. The choice of evaluation techniques depends on the feature of the problem at hand, on the aims of the analysis, and on the underlying information base At different management levels, the complexity in considering social, environmental, economic and political factor in decision-making is different. At higher the strategic planning level, more non-cost factors are involved. The complexity also varies based on the scope of the investment proposals. Road agencies traditionally place less emphasis on evaluation of maintenance works. In some cases, social equity, safety, environmental issues have been used in maintenance project selection. However, there is not a common base for the applications.

National practices in investment decision making in road sector

This document provides the findings of a national review of investment decision-making practices in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying the strategic objectives of agencies in road asset management, establishing and understanding criteria different organisations adopted and ascertaining the exact methodologies used by different sate road authorities. The investment objectives of Australian road authorities are based on triple-bottom line considerations (social, environmental, economic and political). In some cases, comparing with some social considerations, such as regional economic development, equity, and access to pubic service etc., Benefit-Cost Ratio has limited influence on the decision-making. Australian road authorities have developed various decision support tools. Although Multi-Criteria Analysis has been preliminarily used in case by case study, pavement management systems, which are primarily based on Benefit Cost Analysis, are still the main decision support tool. This situation is not compatible with the triple-bottom line objectives. There is need to fill the gap between decision support tools and decision-making itself. Different decision criteria should be adopted based on the contents of the work. Additional decision criteria, which are able to address social, environmental and political impacts, are needed to develop or identify. Environmental issue plays a more and more important role in decision-making. However, the criteria and respective weights in decision-making process are yet to be clearly identified. Social and political impacts resulted from road infrastructure investment can be identified through Community Perceptions Survey. With accumulative data, prediction models, which are similar as pavement performance models, can be established. Using these models, the decision-makers are able to foresee the social and political consequences of investment alternatives.

Cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prosthesis: the Queensland experience

Individuals with limb amputation fitted with conventional socket-suspended prostheses often experience socket-related discomfort leading to a significant decrease in quality of life. Bone-anchored prostheses are increasingly acknowledged as viable alternative method of attachment of artificial limb. In this case, the prosthesis is attached directly to the residual skeleton through a percutaneous fixation. To date, a few osseointegration fixations are commercially available. Several devices are at different stages of development particularly in Europe and the US. [1-15] Clearly, surgical procedures are currently blooming worldwide. Indeed, Australia and Queensland, in particular, have one of the fastest growing populations. Previous studies involving either screw-type implants or press-fit fixations for bone-anchorage have focused on biomechanics aspects as well as the clinical benefits and safety of the procedure. In principle, bone-anchored prostheses should eliminate lifetime expenses associated with sockets and, consequently, potentially alleviate the financial burden of amputation for governmental organizations. Unfortunately, publications focusing on cost-effectiveness are sparse. In fact, only one study published by Haggstrom et al (2012), reported that “despite significantly fewer visits for prosthetic service the annual mean costs for osseointegrated prostheses were comparable with socket-suspended prostheses”. Consequently, governmental organizations such as Queensland Artificial Limb Services (QALS) are facing a number of challenges while adjusting financial assistance schemes that should be fair and equitable to their clients fitted with bone-anchored prostheses. Clearly, more scientific evidence extracted from governmental databases is needed to further consolidate the analyses of financial burden associated with both methods of attachment (i.e., conventional sockets prostheses, bone-anchored prostheses). The purpose of the presentation will be to share the current outcomes of a cost-analysis study lead by QALS. The specific objectives will be: • To outline methodological avenues to assess the cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses compared to conventional sockets prostheses, • To highlight the potential obstacles and limitations in cost-effectiveness analyses of bone-anchored prostheses, • To present cohort results of a cost-effectiveness (QALY vs cost) including the determination of fair Incremental cost-effectiveness Ratios (ICER) as well as cost-benefit analysis focusing on the comparing costs and key outcome indicators (e.g., QTFA, TUG, 6MWT, activities of daily living) over QALS funding cycles for both methods of attachment.

Report : review of the literature : maintenance and rehabilitation costs for roads (Risk-based Analysis)

Realistic estimates of short- and long-term (strategic) budgets for maintenance and rehabilitation of road assessment management should consider the stochastic characteristics of asset conditions of the road networks so that the overall variability of road asset data conditions is taken into account. The probability theory has been used for assessing life-cycle costs for bridge infrastructures by Kong and Frangopol (2003), Zayed et.al. (2002), Kong and Frangopol (2003), Liu and Frangopol (2004), Noortwijk and Frangopol (2004), Novick (1993). Salem 2003 cited the importance of the collection and analysis of existing data on total costs for all life-cycle phases of existing infrastructure, including bridges, road etc., and the use of realistic methods for calculating the probable useful life of these infrastructures (Salem et. al. 2003). Zayed et. al. (2002) reported conflicting results in life-cycle cost analysis using deterministic and stochastic methods. Frangopol et. al. 2001 suggested that additional research was required to develop better life-cycle models and tools to quantify risks, and benefits associated with infrastructures. It is evident from the review of the literature that there is very limited information on the methodology that uses the stochastic characteristics of asset condition data for assessing budgets/costs for road maintenance and rehabilitation (Abaza 2002, Salem et. al. 2003, Zhao, et. al. 2004). Due to this limited information in the research literature, this report will describe and summarise the methodologies presented by each publication and also suggest a methodology for the current research project funded under the Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation CRC CI project no 2003-029-C.

Strategies for minimising the whole of life cycle cost of reinforced concrete bridge exposed to aggressive environments

n design of bridge structures, it is common to adopt a 100 year design life. However, analysis of a number of case study bridges in Australia has indicated that the actual design life can be significantly reduced due to premature deterioration resulting from exposure to aggressive environments. A closer analysis of the cost of rehabilitation of these structures has raised some interesting questions. What would be the real service life of a bridge exposed to certain aggressive environments? What is the strategy of conducting bridge rehabilitation? And what are the life cycle costs associated with rehabilitation? A research project funded by the CRC for Construction Innovation in Australia is aimed at addressing these issues. This paper presents a concept map for assisting decision makers to appropriately choose the best treatment for bridge rehabilitation affected by premature deterioration through exposure to aggressive environments in Australia. The decision analysis is referred to a whole of life cycle cost analysis by considering appropriate elements of bridge rehabilitation costs. In addition, the results of bridges inspections in Queensland are presented

The cost effectiveness of Naltrexone added to cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment of alcohol dependence

he purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparative cost of treating alcohol dependence with either cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) alone or CBT combined with naltrexone (CBT+naltrexone). Two hundred ninety-eight outpatients dependent on alcohol who were consecutively treated for alcohol dependence participated in this study. One hundred seven (36%) patients received adjunctive pharmacotherapy (CBT+naltrexone). The Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program was used to estimate treatment costs. Adjunctive pharmacotherapy (CBT+naltrexone) introduced an additional treatment cost and was 54% more expensive than CBT alone. When treatment abstinence rates (36.1% CBT; 62.6% CBT+naltrexone) were applied to cost effectiveness ratios, CBT+naltrexone demonstrated an advantage over CBT alone. There were no differences between groups on a preference-based health measure (SF-6D). In this treatment center, to achieve 100 abstainers over a 12-week program, 280 patients require CBT compared with 160 CBT+naltrexone. The dominant choice was CBT+naltrexone based on modest economic advantages and significant efficiencies in the numbers needed to treat.

Developing a life-cycle costing analysis model for sustainability enhancement in road infrastructure project

With increasing pressure to provide environmentally responsible infrastructure products and services, stakeholders are putting significant foci on the early identification of financial viability and outcome of infrastructure projects. Traditionally, there has been an imbalance between sustainable measures and project budget. On one hand, the industry tends to employ the first-cost mentality and approach to developing infrastructure projects. On the other, environmental experts and technology innovators often push for the ultimately green products and systems without much of a concern for cost. This situation is being quickly changed as the industry is under pressure to continue to return profit, while better adapting to current and emerging global issues of sustainability. For the infrastructure sector to contribute to sustainable development, it will need to increase value and efficiency. Thus, there is a great need for tools that will enable decision makers evaluate competing initiatives and identify the most sustainable approaches to procuring infrastructure projects. In order to ensure that these objectives are achieved, the concept of life-cycle costing analysis (LCCA) will play significant roles in the economics of an infrastructure project. Recently, a few research initiatives have applied the LCCA models for road infrastructure that focused on the traditional economics of a project. There is little coverage of life-cycle costing as a method to evaluate the criteria and assess the economic implications of pursuing sustainability in road infrastructure projects. To rectify this problem, this paper reviews the theoretical basis of previous LCCA models before discussing their inability to determinate the sustainability indicators in road infrastructure project. It then introduces an on-going research aimed at developing a new model to integrate the various new cost elements based on the sustainability indicators with the traditional and proven LCCA approach. It is expected that the research will generate a working model for sustainability based life-cycle cost analysis.

Cost-aware business process management: A research agenda

Organisations are constantly seeking cost-effective improvements for their business processes. Business process management (BPM) provides organisations with a range of methods, techniques and tools for analysing, managing, and optimising their business operations. However, BPM initiatives within organisations tend to focus on investigating time and resource utilisation inefficiencies, rather than directly on cost inefficiencies. As a result, high-level cost-based managerial decisions are still being made separately from process related decisions. This position paper describes a research agenda that envisages a holistic approach to managing the cost of business operations in a structured manner, by making an explicit link between cost and processes in all phases of the business process management life cycle. We discuss a number of research challenges that need to be addressed in order to realise such an approach as well as findings from some of the initial research outcomes. It is envisioned that the research outcomes will enable organisations to make operational and strategic decisions with confidence based on accurate and real-time cost information about their operations.

Managing cost implications for highway infrastructure sustainability

Highway construction works have significant bearings on all aspects of sustainability. With the increasing level of public awareness and government regulatory measures, the construction industry is experiencing a cultural shift to recognise, embrace and pursue sustainability. Stakeholders are now keen to identify sustainable alternatives and the financial implications of including them on a lifecycle basis. They need tools that can aid the evaluation of investment options. To date, however, there have not been many financial assessments on the sustainability aspects of highway projects. This is because the existing life-cycle costing analysis (LCCA) models tend to focus on economic issues alone and are not able to deal with sustainability factors. This paper provides insights into the current practice of life-cycle cost analysis, and the identification and quantification of sustainability-related cost components in highway projects through literature review, questionnaire surveys and semi-structured interviews. The results can serve as a platform for highway project stakeholders to develop practical tools to evaluate highway investment decisions and reach an optimum balance between financial viability and sustainability deliverables.