Cost performance of Irish credit unions

There are 424 credit unions in Ireland with assets under their control of €14.3bn and a membership of 2.5m which equates to about 66% of the economically active population, the highest penetration level of any country. That said, the Irish movement sits at a critical development stage, well behind mature markets such as Canada and the US in terms of product provision, technological sophistication, fragmentation of trade bodies and regulatory environment. This study analyses relative cost efficiency or performance of Irish credit unions using the popular frontier approach which measures an entity’s efficiency relative to a frontier of best practice. Parametric techniques are utilised, with variation in inefficiency being attributed to credit union-specific factors. The stochastic cost frontier parameters and the credit-union specific parameters are simultaneously estimated to produce valid statistical inferences. The study finds that the majority of Irish credit unions are not operating at optimal levels. It further highlights the factors which drive efficiency variation across credit unions and they include technological sophistication, ‘sponsor donated’ resources, interest rate differentials and the levels of bad debt written off

A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of an Adapted U.S. Model of Pharmaceutical Care for Nursing Home Residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood Northern Ireland Study): A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an adapted U.S. model of pharmaceutical care to improve psychoactive prescribing for nursing home residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood NI Study).
DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Nursing homes in NI randomized to intervention (receipt of the adapted model of care; n511) or control (usual care continued; n511).
PARTICIPANTS: Residents aged 65 and older who provided informed consent (N5253; 128 intervention, 125 control) and who had full resource use data at 12 months.
INTERVENTION: Trained pharmacists reviewed intervention home residents’ clinical and prescribing information for 12 months, applied an algorithm that guided them in assessing the appropriateness of psychoactive medication, and worked with prescribers (general practitioners) to make changes. The control homes received usual care in which there was no pharmacist intervention.
MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of residents prescribed one or more inappropriate psychoactive medications (according to standardized protocols), costs, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. The latter two outcomes are the focus for this article.
RESULTS: The proportions of residents receiving inappropriate psychoactive medication at 12 months in the intervention and control group were 19.5% and 50.4%, respectively. The mean cost of healthcare resources used per resident per year was $4,923 (95% con?dence interval.

The effect of feedstock cost on biofuel cost as exemplified by biomethane production from grass silage.

Abstract: The potential variance in feedstock costs can have signifi cant implications for the cost of a biofuel and the fi nancial viability of a biofuel facility. This paper employs the Grange Feed Costing Model to assess the cost of on-farm biomethane production using grass silages produced under a range of management scenarios. These costs were compared with the cost of wheat grain and sugarbeet roots for ethanol production at an industrial scale. Of the three feedstocks examined, grass silage represents the cheapest feedstock per GJ of biofuel produced. At a production cost of €27/tonne (t) feedstock (or €150/t volatile solids (VS)), the feedstock production cost of grass silage per gigajoule (GJ) of biofuel (€12.27) is lower than that of sugarbeet (€16.82) and wheat grain (€18.61). Grass biomethane is also the cheapest biofuel when grass silage is costed at the bottom quartile purchase price of silage of €19/t (€93/t VS). However, when considering the production costs (full-costing) of the three feedstocks, the total cost of grass biomethane (€32.37/GJ of biofuel; intensive 2-cut system) from a small on-farm facility ranks between that of sugarbeet (€29.62) and wheat grain ethanol (€34.31) produced in large industrial facilities. The feedstock costs for the above three biofuels represent 0.38, 0.57, and 0.54 of the total biofuel cost. The importance of feedstock cost on biofuel cost is further highlighted by the 0.43 increase in the cost of biomethane when grass silage is priced at the top quartile (€46/t or €232/t VS) compared to the bottom quartile purchase price.