| | |
Undiscounted benefits
|
Discounted benefits
|
|---|
|
Reduction in prevalence
|
Number of cases averteda
|
Potential cost savingsb
|
Net benefits (costs, AUD)c
|
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, AUD)d
|
Potential cost savingsb
|
Net benefits (costs, AUD)c
|
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, AUD)d
|
|---|
|
10.0%
|
110
|
$330,000,000
|
$290,500,000
|
-$2,640,909
|
$212,740,000
|
$173,240,000
|
-$1,574,909
|
|
6.0%
|
66
|
$198,000,000
|
$158,500,000
|
-$2,401,515
|
$127,644,000
|
$88,144,000
|
-$1,335,515
|
|
5.0%
|
55
|
$165,000,000
|
$125,500,000
|
-$2,281,818
|
$106,370,000
|
$66,870,000
|
-$1,215,818
|
|
4.0%
|
44
|
$132,000,000
|
$92,500,000
|
-$2,102,273
|
$85,096,000
|
$45,596,000
|
-$1,036,273
|
|
3.0%
|
33
|
$99,000,000
|
$59,500,000
|
-$1,803,030
|
$63,822,000
|
$24,322,000
|
-$737,030
|
|
2.0%
|
22
|
$66,000,000
|
$26,500,000
|
-$1,204,545
|
$42,548,000
|
$3,048,000
|
-$138,545
|
|
1.8%
|
20
|
$60,000,000
|
$20,500,000
|
-$1,025,000
|
$38,680,000
|
-$820,000
|
$41,000
|
|
1.6%
|
18
|
$54,000,000
|
$14,500,000
|
-$805,556
|
$34,812,000
|
-$4,688,000
|
$260,444
|
|
1.4%
|
15
|
$45,000,000
|
$5,500,000
|
-$366,667
|
$29,010,000
|
-$10,490,000
|
$699,333
|
|
1.2%
|
13
|
$39,000,000
|
-$500,000
|
$38,462
|
$25,142,000
|
-$14,358,000
|
$1,104,462
|
|
1.0%
|
11
|
$33,000,000
|
-$6,500,000
|
$590,909
|
$21,274,000
|
-$18,226,000
|
$1,656,909
|
-
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 3 M (undiscounted) ($1.934 M discounted) per case
-
cNet 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.
-
dThe 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).
