IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/johsem/v5y2008i1p26n3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Minimization and Medical Examinations: The Case of Anthrax

Author

Listed:
  • DeAngelo Gregory

    (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Abstract

In 2001 the United States experienced several anthrax attacks that attracted significant attention from the medical community, policy analysts and many other professionals, but relatively little attention from economists. This paper builds on the work of Hupert et al. (2002) by using an M/G/1 queuing model to analyze the tension between economic cost minimization and the stringency of medical examinations in the aftermath of an anthrax attack. The theoretical analysis displays ambiguous results. Given this outcome, numerical analysis of the aforementioned tension is conducted with two main results. First, for many values of the model parameters that describe the stringency of the examinations, a tension does exist between economic cost minimization and examination stringency. Second, for many values of the parameter that describes the scale of an anthrax attack a tension does not exist between economic cost minimization and examination stringency. Moreover, when medical examiners are charged with the task of making equitable versus ethical tradeoffs in their provision of medical care, the problem of discerning the lower cost examination regime becomes confounded further. It is the goal of this work to extend the literature regarding bioterrorism and medical responses to include an additional goal of economic cost minimization.

Suggested Citation

  • DeAngelo Gregory, 2008. "Cost Minimization and Medical Examinations: The Case of Anthrax," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-26, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:johsem:v:5:y:2008:i:1:p:26:n:3
    DOI: 10.2202/1547-7355.1318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1318
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1547-7355.1318?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:johsem:v:5:y:2008:i:1:p:26:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.