DO JURORS HOLD AUDITORS TO A DIFFERENT NEGLIGENCE STANDARD UNDER U.S. GAAP AND IFRS?

In order to fulfill the requirements of East Carolina University’s Honors College, I created the research study described in this paper to examine the effects on auditor liability under United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles compared to the International Financial Reporting Standards. The Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board have been working towards convergence between U.S. GAAP, a rules-based system, and IFRS, a principles-based system. This research study examines whether potential jurors would hold auditors to a different negligence standard between rules-based and principles-based accounting. This study also explores how juror assessments of auditor responsibility differ when auditor liability is limited, as opposed to, unlimited. An experiment was conducted with students at a large state university representing jurors. I found evidence that auditor liability was held to a higher dollar value under unlimited liability and when relevant accounting standards were rules-based

Additional file 1: of New Highly Active Antiretroviral drugs and generic drugs for the treatment of HIV infection: a budget impact analysis on the Italian National Health Service (Lombardy Region, Northern Italy)

Patient’s distribution in the second semester of each year of the base case scenario and of the “new and generic drugs” scenario. (DOCX 39 kb

Additional file 1: of Knowledge transfer: what drug information would specialist doctors need to support their clinical practice? Results of a survey and of three focus groups in Italy

Questionnaire. Description of data: 24-item questionnaire used for the quantitative survey. (RTF 371 kb

Additional file 2: of Knowledge transfer: what drug information would specialist doctors need to support their clinical practice? Results of a survey and of three focus groups in Italy

Topic guide for focus groups. Description of data: details about the structure of the focus groups and their contents, addressed through specific questions. (DOC 83 kb

Transition probabilities (per patient, per 6-month cycle) related to first-line treatment and second-line treatment and probabilities of AIDS event

†<p>diagonal elements of transition matrix expressing the probability of remaining in the same health state after one Markov cycle (semester)</p>*<p>transitions based on a 19% lesser likelihood of transitioning to a state with greater viral load than when receiving LPV/r</p

Costs of treatments and adverse events in euro for each Health State.

<p>Costs of treatments and adverse events in euro for each Health State.</p

Lifetime results of the model divided per treatment.

<p>QALY: Quality-adjusted life years; CHD: Coronary heart disease; CKD: Chronic kidney disease; OI: Opportunistic infection; AE: Adverse event; VL: Viral load.</p

Incremental cost effectiveness ratio plan, presenting the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis of LPV/r vs. ATV+r 1 regimens.

<p>Incremental cost effectiveness ratio plan, presenting the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis of LPV/r vs. ATV+r 1 regimens.</p

Base-case estimates used within the model

<p>SD: standard deviation; DM: diabetes mellitus; CHD: Coronary heart disease; TC: Total cholesterol; HDL: High-density lipoprotein; VL: Viral load; HS: Health state; OI: Opportunistic infection; CKD: Chronic kidney disease</p>*<p>Estimates gathered from the literature and expressed as incidence rates (i.e., event/person-years) were converted into semestral probabilities using standard formulas</p>†<p>Transition probabilities of transitioning to a state with greater viral load (≥ 50 copies/mL) are 19% lesser than LPV/r</p>‡<p>Effect on TC:HDL ratio is considered null in second-line treatment</p

QALY variables related to HS, and events entered in the microsimulation model.

<p>HS: Health state; QALY: Quality-adjusted life years; CHD: Coronary heart disease; CKD: Chronic kidney disease; OI Opportunistic infection</p