Charles E. Phelps

Effect of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on government spending.

A completed series of reports on a randomized trial (N=400) indicated that, in contrast to comparison services, prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation improved a wide range of maternal and child health outcomes among poor, unmarried, and teenaged women bearing first children in a semirural county in upstate New York. Eighty-nine percent of the sample was white, and all analyses focused on this group. In this article, an analysis of the net cost of the home-visitation program from the perspective of government spending is presented. The average per-family cost of the program in 1980 dollars was

DEDUCTIBLES AND THE DEMAND FOR MEDICAL CARE SERVICES: THE THEORY OF A CONSUMER FACING A VARIABLE PRICE SCHEDULE UNDER UNCERTAINTY

3,246 for the sample as a whole, and

On the (NEAR) equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses

3,133 for low-income families. Treatment differences in government expenditures for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and Child Protective Services, minus tax revenues due to maternal employment (also expressed in 1980 dollars), were conceived as government savings. By the time the children were 4 years of age, government savings were

Bug/Drug Resistance: Sometimes Less is More

1,772 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -

Focusing Technology Assessment Using Medical Decision Theory

557,

The Demand for Dental Care

4,102) for the sample as a whole, and

Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment.

3,498 (95% CI:

Reductions in individual work productivity associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus

569,

A Blood-Based Gene Expression Test for Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease Tested in Symptomatic Nondiabetic Patients Referred for Myocardial Perfusion Imaging The COMPASS Study

6,427) for low-income families. Within 2 years after the program ended, after discounting, the net cost of the program (program costs minus savings) for the sample as a whole was

ILLNESS PREVENTION AND MEDICAL INSURANCE

1,582 per family. For low-income families, the cost of the program was recovered with a dividend of