Table 4 |
||||
|
Sensitivity results (benefits discounted) |
||||
|
Reduction in prevalence |
Number of cases averteda |
Potential cost savingsb |
Net benefits (costs AUD)c
|
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, AUD)d |
|
|
||||
|
Sensitivity 1: reduce value of saving high-risk youth to $1.673 M (base case $1.934 M) |
||||
|
2% |
22 |
$42,548,000 |
$3,048,000 |
-$138,545 |
|
1% |
11 |
$21,274,000 |
-$18,226,000 |
$1,656,909 |
|
Sensitivity 2: increase value of saving high-risk youth to $2.264 M (base case $1.934 M) |
||||
|
2% |
22 |
$49,808,000 |
$10,308,000 |
-$468,545 |
|
1% |
11 |
$24,904,000 |
-$14,596,000 |
-$1,326,909 |
|
Sensitivity 3: increase proportion of participants likely to embark on a high-risk pathway to 3% (base case 0.5%) |
||||
|
2% |
132 |
$255,288,000 |
-$215,788,000 |
-$1,634,758 |
|
1% |
66 |
$127,644,000 |
-$88,144,000 |
-$1,335,515 |
|
|
||||
|
a Refers to the number of cases averted as a result of the program. The total number of children in the program considered to be 'high-risk' cases is 1,104 b Refers to the lifetime costs of high-risk youth averted by reducing the prevalence. Savings equate to the number of cases averted × AUD 1.934 M per case c Net benefit is derived by subtracting the costs of the BBBS-M program (AUD 39.5 M) for the cohort from the potential cost savings. A positive number means that the program saves more resources than what it costs, and conversely, a negative number means that the program costs more than what it saves. d The ICER is determined by dividing the net benefits of the program by the numbers of cases of high-risk youth averted. A negative ratio denotes that the program is a dominant intervention in that it saves money and has extra benefits (defined as cases averted). |
||||
|
Moodie and Fisher BMC Public Health 2009 9:41 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-41 |
||||
