Value for money : procuring infrastructure

Australia is just one of many developed countries facing the challenge of delivering value for money in the provision of a substantial infrastructure pipeline amidst severe construction and private finance constraints. To help address this challenge, this chapter focuses on developing an understanding of the determinants of value at key procurement decision points that range from the make-or-buy decision, to buying in the context of market structures, including the exchange relationship and contractual arrangement decision. This understanding is based on theoretical pluralism and illustrated by research in the field of construction and maintenance, and in public-private partnerships.

Delivering value for money in the procurement of public sector major infrastructure : a new first-order decision making model

The significant challenge faced by government in demonstrating value for money in the delivery of major infrastructure resolves around estimating costs and benefits of alternative modes of procurement. Faced with this challenge, one approach is to focus on a dominant performance outcome visible on the opening day of the asset, as the means to select the procurement approach. In this case, value for money becomes a largely nominal concept and determined by selected procurement mode delivering, or not delivering, the selected performance outcome, and notwithstanding possible under delivery on other desirable performance outcomes, as well as possibly incurring excessive transaction costs. This paper proposes a mind-set change in this particular practice, to an approach in which the analysis commences with the conditions pertaining to the project and proceeds to deploy transaction cost and production cost theory to indicate a procurement approach that can claim superior value for money relative to other competing procurement modes. This approach to delivering value for money in relative terms is developed in a first-order procurement decision making model outlined in this paper. The model developed could be complementary to the Public Sector Comparator (PSC) in terms of cross validation and the model more readily lends itself to public dissemination. As a possible alternative to the PSC, the model could save time and money in preparation of project details to lesser extent than that required in the reference project and may send a stronger signal to the market that may encourage more innovation and competition.

Lowndes and Locke on the value of money

This paper was presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the European Society for the History of Economic Thought (ESHET).

Accountability and Value for Money in Private Finance Initiative Contracts

Within the context of New Public Management (NPM), successive UK governments have claimed that PFI projects provide more accountability, and arguably, more value for money (VFM) than conventional procurement for the public (HM Treasury 1995, 2000, 2003a and 2003b). However, recent empirical research in the UK on PFI has indicated its potential limitations for accountability and VFM (Broadbent, Gill and Laughlin, 2004; Edwards, Shaoul, Stafford and Arblaster, 2004; Shaoul, 2005; and Ismail and Pendlebury, 2006) albeit these are based on either published accounts or a limited number of key stakeholders. This paper attempts to partially redress this gap in the literature by presenting an interesting case of the impact of PFI on accountability and VFM in Northern Ireland's education sector. The findings of this research, based on forty two interviews with a wide range of key stakeholders, suggest that stakeholders have different and often conflicting expectations and the actual PFI accountability and VFM benefits are much more obfuscated than those claimed in Government publications.

Accountability and Value for Money: A Framework for Exploring the Relationship in Private Finance Initiative Contracts

There is an implicit assumption in the UK Treasury’s publications on public-private partnerships (PPP) – also more commonly known in the United Kingdom as private finance initiative (PFI) - that accountability and value for money (VFM) are related concepts. While recent academic studies on PPP/PFI (from now on as PFI) have focused on VFM, there is a notable absence of studies exploring the ‘presumed’ relationships between accountability and VFM. Drawing on Dubnick’s (Dubnick and Romzek, 1991, 1993; Dubnick, 1996, 1998, 2003, 2005; Dubnick and Justice, 2002) framework for accountability and PFI literature, we develop a research framework for exploring potential relationships between accountability and VFM in PFI projects by proposing alternative accountability cultures, processes and mechanisms for PFI. The PFI accountability model is then exposed to four criteria - warrantability, tractability, measurability and feasibility. Our preliminary interviews provide us guidance in identifying some of the cultures, processes and mechanisms indicated in our model which should enable future researchers to test not only the UK Government’s claimed relationships between accountability and VFM using more specific PFI empirical data, but also a potential relationship between accountability and performance in general.

The National Audit Office uses OR to assess the value for money of public services

Supreme audit institutions (SAIs) have an important role in assessing value for money in the delivery of public services. Assessing value for money necessarily involves assessing counterfactuals: good value for money has been achieved if a policy could not reasonably have been delivered more efficiently, effectively, or economically. Operations research modelling has the potential to help in the assessment of these counterfactuals. However, is such modelling too arcane, complex, and technically burdensome for organisations that, like SAIs, operate in a time- and resource-constrained and politically charged environment? We report on three applications of modelling at the UK's SAI, the National Audit Office, in the context of studies on demand management in tax collection, end-of-life care, and health-care associated infections. In all cases, the models have featured in the audit reports and helped study teams come to a value-for-money judgment. We conclude that OR modelling is indeed a valuable addition to the value-for-money auditor's methodological tool box.

Does the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program provide value for money?

Objective: The aim of the present study was to investigate the economic case for the implementation of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program on a population basis in Queensland, Australia, in order to reduce the prevalence of conduct disorder in children. Method: Threshold analysis was undertaken together with a limited cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program is a dominant intervention; that is, it costs less than the amount it saves, until the reduction in prevalence falls below 7% where net costs become positive. Conclusions: Triple P is likely to be a worthwhile use of limited health funds. The economic case is promising, but further research is required to confirm the study results.

Are youth mentoring programs good value-for-money? An evaluation of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Melbourne program

Background : The Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) program matches vulnerable young people with a trained, supervised adult volunteer as mentor. The young people are typically seriously disadvantaged, with multiple psychosocial problems.

Methods : Threshold analysis was undertaken to determine whether investment in the program was a worthwhile use of limited public funds. The potential cost savings were based on US estimates of life-time costs associated with high-risk youth who drop out-of-school and become adult criminals. The intervention was modelled for children aged 10–14 years residing in Melbourne in 2004.

Results : If the program serviced 2,208 of the most vulnerable young people, it would cost AUD 39.5 M. Assuming 50% were high-risk, the associated costs of their adult criminality would be AUD 3.3 billion. To break even, the program would need to avert high-risk behaviours in only 1.3% (14/1,104) of participants.

Conclusion : This indicative evaluation suggests that the BBBS program represents excellent 'value for money'.

Do indicated preventive interventions for depression represent good value for money?

The prevention of depression is of growing interest to researchers and policy makers. However, the question of whether interventions designed to prevent depression provide value for money at a population level remains largely unanswered. The current study assesses the cost-effectiveness of two indicated interventions designed to prevent depression: a brief psychological intervention based on bibliotherapy and a more comprehensive group-based psychological intervention following opportunistic screening for sub-syndromal depression in general practice. Method: Economic modelling using a cost utility framework was used to assess the incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the two interventions within the Australian population context, modelled as add-ons to current practice. The perspective was the health sector and outcomes were measured using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Uncertainty was measured using probabilistic uncertainty testing and important model assumptions were tested using univariate sensitivity testing. Results: The brief bibliotherapy intervention had an ICER of AU$8600 per DALY and the group-based psychological intervention had an ICER of AU$20 000 per DALY. The majority of the uncertainty simulations for both interventions fell below the cost-effectiveness threshold value of $50 000 per DALY. Extensive sensitivity testing showed that the results were robust to the assumptions made in the analyses. Conclusions: Following screening in general practice, both psychological interventions, particularly brief bibliotherapy, appear to be good value for money and worthy of further evaluation under routine care circumstances. Acceptability issues associated with such interventions, particularly to primary care practitioners as providers of the interventions and health system administrators, also need to be considered before wide-scale adoption is contemplated.

Which interventions offer best value for money in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

Background
Despite many decades of declining mortality rates in the Western world, cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In this research we evaluate the optimal mix of lifestyle, pharmaceutical and population-wide interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Methods and Findings
In a discrete time Markov model we simulate the ischaemic heart disease and stroke outcomes and cost impacts of intervention over the lifetime of all Australian men and women, aged 35 to 84 years, who have never experienced a heart disease or stroke event. Best value for money is achieved by mandating moderate limits on salt in the manufacture of bread, margarine and cereal. A combination of diuretic, calcium channel blocker, ACE inhibitor and low-cost statin, for everyone with at least 5% five-year risk of cardiovascular disease, is also cost-effective, but lifestyle interventions aiming to change risky dietary and exercise behaviours are extremely poor value for money and have little population health benefit.

Conclusions
There is huge potential for improving efficiency in cardiovascular disease prevention in Australia. A tougher approach from Government to mandating limits on salt in processed foods and reducing excessive statin prices, and a shift away from lifestyle counselling to more efficient absolute risk-based prescription of preventive drugs, could cut health care costs while improving population health.