u/gabriellar135
Separating affordability from cost-effectiveness when scaling an intervention.
Suppose the online option retains staff feedback, then I’d budget staff feedback time per attendee in each year of the payer’s horizon.
Within each budget year, are there setup costs paid separately for every participating service? Those would affect whether your two equal-attendance scenarios also have equal budget impact.
Within the payer’s budget horizon, I’d define uptake in this rollout budget as nurses attending training. That makes the proposed scale a training participation target. I’d track use of the learning in routine care separately, including any associated resource costs, rather than infer it from attendance. The affordability estimate would then describe funding the training rollout; judging its value would still require evidence of what changes in care.
For each budget year, does “replacement staff available” mean staff can be hired, or that services also have funds approved to hire them?
Across the payer’s budget years, can unspent training funds carry forward to pay for rescheduled cohorts?
Over the payer’s budget horizon, continuing professional development may be clinically useful yet remain unaffordable at the proposed scale. The qualitative study titled “What makes continuing professional development clinically useful for nurses?” may help identify valued program features, but its title does not establish resource requirements, uptake, or economic outcomes. A linked budget impact analysis should report training costs, staff replacement time, implementation capacity, and slower uptake scenarios separately from any estimate of cost-effectiveness.
