We develop a framework of bilateral oligopoly with a sequential two-stage game in which manufacturers engage in bilateral bargains with retailers competing on a downstream market. We show that bargaining outcomes depend on three different bargaining forces and can be interpreted in terms of "equilibrium of fear". We estimate our framework using data on soft drink purchases in France and find that retailers have a higher bargaining power than manufacturers. Using counterfactual simulations, we highlight that retail mergers always increase retailers' fear of disagreement which weakens their bargaining power vis-à-vis manufacturers and leads to higher wholesale and retail prices.

Alliances of buyers to negotiate input prices with suppliers are commonplace. Using pre-and post-alliances data on household purchases of bottled water, I develop a structural model of bilateral oligopoly to estimate the effects of three alliances formed by retailers on their bargaining power vis-à-vis manufacturers and retail prices paid by consumers. Results provide evidence of a countervailing buyer power effect that reduces retail prices by roughly 7%. Exploring determinants of buyer power, I find that changes in retailers' bargaining ability play an important role in the countervailing force exerted by the alliances which, otherwise, would have not been profitable.

TSC vaccine consisting of TBH alone seems to have potent adjuvant reactions overcoming both persistence of tumor stem cells and immune escape of GBM without provoking an encephalitic reaction.

s215 cost for procedures/medications occurring at increased frequency in the disease cohorts versus controls (1.5x and 3.5x were both tested). Method 3 used the difference in total cost between disease cohorts and matched controls. Method 4 (RA only) served as our internal standard method and utilized a separate stand-alone clinician review of codes received by the RA cohort. Outpatient/pharmacy claims flagged as RA-related were included in the Method 4 analysis. Results: 24,373 RA patients and 9,665 UC patients were included. Average total cost was $28,750 per RA patient and $20,480 per UC patient. RA-related cost as a percent of total cost: method 1, 48%; method 2 (1.5x), 56%; method 2 (3.5x), 44%; method 3, 73%; method 4, 44%. UC-related cost as a percent of total cost: method 1, 50%; method 2 (1.5x), 50%; method 2 (3.5x), 42%; method 3, 70%. Percent disease-related cost attributed to each cost component (emergency room, inpatient, outpatient, pharmacy) tracked similarly comparing RA to UC within each method 1-3. In RA, our internal standard method 4 was closest in disease-related cost and cost component attribution to method 2 (3.5x). ConClusions: Method 2 (3.5x) is our proposed method for calculating disease-related cost.

ObjectiveS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of therapist guided Internet delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (i-CBT) compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in the management of functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPDs). MethOdS: Ninety children aged 8-12 years, with a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, or functional abdominal pain were randomized to either a treatment consisting of 10 weeks of therapist-guided i-CBT or TAU. The health outcome measure was Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) scores at baseline and post treatment. The scores on the PedsQL were mapped onto the Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) to estimate QALYs. Resource use data were collected using the Treatment Inventory of Costs in Psychiatric Patients (TiC-P) at baseline, 6 weeks and 10 weeks. Cost data for week 6 and week 10 were summed up to estimate the cumulative cost of resource use over the treatment period. We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective using regression techniques to assess the mean differences in costs and QALYs between the treatment arms over time. ReSultS: I-CBT resulted in 0.0181 QALYs gained while TAU was associated with deterioration in HRQoL, -0.0006 QALYs. The incremental health gain resulted in 0.0187 QALYs between i-CBT and TAU arms. The mean intervention cost was 177.33 USD. There was a significant reduction in the healthcare resource use of -155.50 USD in the i-CBT arm compared to the TAU arm. Total mean societal cost to participants randomized to the i-CBT and TAU arms was 2750 USD and 3976 USD respectively, resulting in an incremental cost difference of -1173 USD (1050 USD). The intervention was found to be approximately 86% cost-effective/saving at a willingness to pay of zero. cOncluSiOnS: I-CBT is a cost-saving approach compare with TAU. It saves about 1200 USD per participant over a ten weeks period and thus presents a worthy investment.