Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
In healthcare, analysis of healthcare resource expenditure relative to the expected medical benefits is helpful in setting priorities and healthcare decision-making. It involves a systematic analysis of the costs, benefits and effectiveness of public health investment alternatives. Cost-effectiveness analysis is important in the determination of efficient medical choices and in medical decision-making.
Discussion
Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to assess whether the benefits of a new treatment or any other healthcare program match its cost. However, cost-effectiveness analysis alone cannot be used to adequately assess the allotment efficiency of a treatment program; that is, whether the extra costs relative to the status quo are worth the benefits expected (Donaldson, Currie, & Mitten, 2002, p.234). Relevant data on the effectiveness of a proposed treatment program and its corresponding cost can be considered jointly in a matrix. The program is worth undertaking if costs are saved with greater effectiveness achieved relative to the existing care (Huang, Zhang, Sydney, Melinda, David, & Marshall, 2007, p.2179). In this regard, the cost-effective analysis should involve neither comparisons of different population subgroups nor the element of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Otherwise, it raises issues about opportunity costs and allocative efficiency (Trueman, Drummond, & Hutton, 2001, p.609).
The aforementioned reasoning provides insights into the cost-effectiveness considerations prior to the adoption or rejection of a particular intervention program (Litvak, Long, & Schwartz, 2000, p.254). For instance, a study conducted by Kim and Goldie on the cost-effectiveness of including boys in vaccination program established that the program was not cost-effective considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was not included initially (2009, p.97). In contrast, a study conducted by Huang et al. established that the HDC program was found to be cost-effective considering when incremental cost-effectiveness ratio parameter is considered.
Conclusion
Donaldson et al.s rationale has implications on current policy and potential change in policy. With regard to efficiency and resource allocation, the cost-effectiveness of an intervention program can be determined by evaluating the expected increase in output or efficiency relative to the further resources required.
Reference List
Alligood, M., & Marinner-Tomey, A. (2005). Nursing Theory: Utilization and application. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Donaldson, C., Currie, G., & Mitton, C. (2002). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Health Care: contraindications. BMJ, 325, 233-235.
Gordon, M. (2007). Nursing Diagnoses. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Battet.
Huang, E., Zhang, Q., Sydney, E., Melinda, L., David, O., & Marshall, C. (2007). The Cost-Effectiveness of Improving Diabetes Care in U.S. Federally Qualified Community Health Centers. Health Services Research, 42(6), 2174-2193.
Kim, J., & Goldie, S. (2009). Cost-effectiveness analysis of including boys in a human Papillomavirus vaccination program in the United States BMJ Research, 27(6), 97-101.
Litvak, E., Long, M., & Schwartz, S. (2000). Cost-effectiveness analysis under Managed care: not yet ready for prime time? Am J Manag Care, 6, 254-256.
Meleis, A. (2006). Theoretical Nursing: Development and Progress. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
Trueman, P., Drummond, M., & Hutton, J. (2001) Developing guidance for budget Impact analysis. Pharmacoeconomics, 19(5), 605-607.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.