gabriellar135

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?

Within the payer’s budget horizon, which training and replacement staffing costs remain payable when scheduled nurses don’t attend?

That distinction changes how I’d structure the budget impact analysis. I’d model a temporary bottleneck by shifting training cohorts and annual spending across the payer’s horizon, while a persistent capacity limit changes total uptake and may lower cumulative spending without making the intended scale feasible.

Both should be measured, but they should not be placed in the same budget category. Over the payer’s horizon, reimbursed travel, paid training time, and replacement staffing affect affordability directly. Unpaid attendance and unreimbursed travel fall outside the payer’s cash budget, yet excluding them would hide costs shifted to nurses. Report those separately and state the analytic perspective used for each comparison.