Five-Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost-Effectiveness

We gathered information on the cost-effectiveness of life-saving interventions in the United States from publicly available economic analyses. "Life-saving interventions" were defined as any behavioral and/or technological strategy that reduces the probability of premature death among a specified target population. We defined cost-effectiveness as the net resource costs of an intervention per year of life saved. To improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness ratios arrived at with diverse methods, we established fixed definitional goals and revised published estimates, when necessary and feasible, to meet these goals. The 587 interventions identified ranged from those that save more resources than they cost, to those costing more than 10 billion dollars per year of life saved. Overall, the median intervention costs $42,000 per life-year saved. The median medical intervention costs $19,000/life-year; injury reduction $48,000/life-year; and toxin control $2,800,000/life-year. Cost/life-year ratios and bibliographic references for more than 500 life-saving interventions are provided.     

The Cost-Effectiveness of Lifesaving Interventions in Sweden

In this article, we discuss under what conditions an estimated cost per statistical life saved can be interpreted as an implied lifevalue. Furthermore, we state optimality conditions with respect to variation in implied lifevalues. The cost-effectiveness, together with references, are presented for 165 lifesaving interventions in Sweden. The cost-effectiveness of interventions has been found in publicly available analyses, or in some cases been calculated by us. Several of these interventions produce net savings for society. The most expensive interventions cost several hundred million SEK, or more, per life saved. To improve the comparability of the interventions, certain criteria have been used to standardize the estimates. Still, dissimilarities in the calculation of implied life values remain and the quality of the original data is in some cases uncertain. Despite this and the fact that the interventions are not a representative sample, it is nevertheless possible to conclude that implied life values vary greatly both within and between different sectors of the Swedish society, much in the same manner as in current U.S. analyses.     

Stability and Inoculation of Risk Comparisons'' Effects Under Conflict: Replicating and Extending the "Asbestos Jury" Study by Slovic et al.

Promotion or criticism of risk comparisons in risk communication has far exceeded empirical tests of their effects. Slovic et al. (1990) experimented with a hypothetical jury trial in which an asbestos-installing firm was accused of subjecting school occupants to unreasonable risk. A risk comparison sharply reduced subjects' estimates of risk and judgments that the firm was guilty, but a critique of the risk comparison had risk estimates and guilt judgments rebounding to the original (without risk comparison) level. Slovic et al. concluded that risk comparisons' effects were highly unstable, at least in conflict-ridden situations such as a jury trial. The present study replicates and extends this important study, using the same stimuli and questions. The respective effects of the risk comparison and the critique recurred, although much less sharply than in Slovic et al. Moreover, judgments of guilt, risk, and other aspects of the case seemed shaped more by demographics and beliefs about risk generically (e.g., about the likelihood of cancer after exposure to a carcinogen) than by either risk comparison or critique. A variant design, in which the defense's expert witness dismissed potential criticisms of the risk comparison, appeared to "inoculate" people against shifting their views after seeing the critique. Overall, these results show that risk comparisons might change some beliefs about risks in conflict and that "inoculation" can reduce vulnerability to criticism. However, the results also show strong limits on effects of both comparisons and their critiques: they shifted only a minority of judgments and had small effects relative to people's social locations and prior risk beliefs.     

Antitrust concerns in managed care provider negotiations. United States v. A. Lanoy Alston, DMD, P.C., et al

Contract negotiations between managed care organizations and providers are potential legal traps, loaded with antitrust implications. A recent court action involving dentists is instructive on the issues for all providers.     

"夹在中间悖论"研究

波特在<竞争战略>中提出,低成本和差异化两种优势不可兼容的"夹在中间"理论,其后一些西方战略学家针对性地提出可以兼顾低成本与差异化两种优势的整合竞争战略理论,这两种理论自相矛盾但又同时成立,本文称之为"夹在中间悖论".本文分别研究了"夹在中间"理论和整合竞争战略理论的隐含假设及其实证依据,界定了"夹在中间悖论"的内涵,剖析了"夹在中间悖论"的成因,提出了"夹在中间悖论"的管理策略,初步解决了竞争战略研究中存在的这个理论困境.     

产品开发价值比较研究

本文通过对产品开发筛选环节的分析,提出了产品开发价值比较研究的问题;在对熵权法用于产品开发价值比较研究的可行性进行充分论证的基础上,运用熵权法及层次分析法对产品开发价值进行了比较研究;继而对运用熵权法和层次分析法进行产品开发价值比较研究的结果进行了分析;并讨论将熵权法和层次分析法同时应用对产品构思筛选准确性的影响,旨在寻求更科学的对产品构思进行筛选的方法。     

关于众包信任影响机制的比较研究

众包平台作为一种创新模式,通过整合群体知识,为企业带来创新。信任可以有效降低众包交易成本,减少机会主义行为。基于国内外已有研究及企业实践,首先对信任的内涵、维度、作用机制进行阐述,然后对众包信任进行界定及分类,并将众包信任与外包信任、电子商务信任进行对比研究,为未来研究提供思路和方向。