Report Sample on Cost Comparison Analysis

Introduction

Cost-Effective Analysis is a method used in economics to evaluate the health and cost outcomes of one or several interventions. Cost-Effective Analysis is comparative. Thus, an intervention can be deemed cost-effective compared to something else, for instance, the result of an intervention or a program. Therefore, CEA is an integral method for determining what plans can be rolled out and its benefits compared to the cost that it would take to implement a program (Muennig & Bounthavong, 2016). The analysis is a critical tool in establishing what needs to be done to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. Cost-Effective Analysis has a range of benefits as well as disadvantages which cannot be overlooked. The health program planners have seen the need to consider this approach to determine what programs are viable and what are not hence coming up with informed decisions on the plans to embrace such that maximum benefits can be reaped from them.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Health Program Planning

In health program planning, Cost-Effective Analysis has several pros. Some of them include the usefulness in relating distinct programs that concentrate on achieving a similar goal or focuses on the same disease. It is also instrumental when analyzing interventions necessary for addressing different conditions and the risk factors associated with the disorders (Muennig & Bounthavong, 2016). Another pro is that Cost-Effective Analysis is essential when the resources are limited. The programmers must develop the most cost-effective measures, which can be obtained after critical, cost-effective analysis. Other vital benefits include identifying health service priorities, assisting in establishing crucial research focuses, identifying goods in urgent need, and according to them, the most appropriate health interventions (Muennig & Bounthavong, 2016).

Lastly, CEA helps in providing typical scales of output for an intervention. However, this approach presents disadvantages, such as organizations differing from how they do their calculations hence questioning its standard (Muennig & Bounthavong, 2016). Organizations may also have distinct units of measurement that can substantially influence the interpretation of the analyzed information. Health program planners can use this approach to make informed health program decisions by looking for the best interventions that help solve a health problem but with the lowest cost. For instance, the planners can consider investing money to increase Hib vaccinations for children to save 20-600 lives or invest the same amount of money to increase measles vaccines to save about 800-69000 lives. Through CEA, these planners might increase the measles vaccine to save more lives than using the same money for Hib vaccines to save about 800 lives.

Cost Benefit Analysis

Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) evaluates what one spends concerning what they have gained to obtain an outcome. This analysis is done in terms of monetary value or duration of revenue, investment, and profit. CBA can also be used to analyze non-tangibles, such as social merits and demerits (Pearce, 2016). Cost-Benefit Analysis is one of the commonly used tools by most organizations in their programs and plans of various interventions. The primary reason it is frequently used includes its benefits in helping decision-making in multiple organizations that minimize expenses while reaping maximum benefits. As opposed to Cost-Effective Analysis, which aims at using the cheapest intervention to gain full benefits, Cost-Benefit Analysis does not necessarily consider the reduction of cost but rather the advantage that an intervention is likely to cause regardless of the price that an organization might incur (Pearce, 2016). Through this approach, an organization might consider investing vast sums of money to ensure that the organization's maximum benefits are realized.

Cost-Benefit Analysis may include various benefits, which may consist of its ability to clarify unpredictable occurrences. It allows one to search thoroughly into particular issues about what one is planning to spend to launch a program or product. Through Cost-Benefit Analysis, an organization stands a chance to make rational decisions about particular matters. CBA is thus a critical instrument that assists significantly in making decisions that are not emotionally driven (Pearce, 2016). This is achieved by evaluating costs that a program is likely to cost to the planner's best knowledge, thus helping them circumvent the need to start a venture or a program since it is appealing due to the outcome tied to such a venture.

Nevertheless, in as much as it has the stated benefits, it also presents with demerits that include non-accountability o all variables. It may give an illusion that one has covered their basis where, in reality, there is vast to know. Health program planners can use this method by not considering the cost that a health program might cause but the program's overall benefits. For instance, it is extremely expensive for a country to immunize all its citizens against Covid-19, but the ultimate goal overrides the cost.

Cost Utility Analysis

Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) is a critical instrument in evaluating and comparing activities that target to reach a similar objective in non-monetary value (Haerling, 2018). This approach creates general scales of utility and values grounded on the needs of individuals. The system has a range of benefits, such as helping an organization make well-thought attempts to consider individuals' preferences. Additionally, this method offers a vast number of potential results that play a critical role in evaluating diverse parameters (Haerling, 2018). Another advantage is the CUA contributes significantly to building consensus among the participating parties in decision making processes as stakeholders are typically involved in assessing their requirements for different results as may be desired (Haerling, 2018).

Nonetheless, this method also has disadvantages. The most significant drawback is that the outcome is often hard to reproduce amongst different analyzers due to the vast and often conflicting methods applied to estimate utility levels (Haerling, 2018). The health program planners can use this method to plan and implement programs beneficial to the people. Through CUA, they can evaluate programs and the level of utility that will be derived from them. For instance, the health program planners may want to formulate public health policies, like banning smoking in public. This might cause implications, but a consensus is obtained, and the measures will lead to preventing health risks associated with the behavior.

Several health care programs are designed to help achieve various goals. Such programs include Weight loss programs that offer counseling and education, Exercise classes. These two programs are critical in health promotion and may need to be implemented for the public's benefit. According to the cases of lifestyle diseases experienced in the modern world, such programs can help manage and mitigate the prevalence of these diseases. However, these programs may present with a range of economic issues, as some may be costly to individuals. However, considering the benefits these programs cause, one would have to analyze whether they want to embrace the plans.

Conclusion

Additionally, different nations' governments would also want to analyze and see if the programs are beneficial given their cost implications. At such a point, Cost-Effective Analysis would be used to make the decision. The government and individuals incur enormous costs while trying to treat lifestyle diseases. The cost would by far exceed the price of these programs, and as such, it would be recommended that through CEA, the plans seem to be viable and valid to apply since that benefits of such programs would be more as compared to the cost that would be incurred in using other modalities such as catering for the people who are already suffering from lifestyle diseases that can be prevented through the implementation of such programs.

References

Haerling, K. A. (2018). Cost-utility analysis of virtual and mannequin-based simulation. Simulation in Healthcare, 13(1), 33-40.

Muennig, P., & Bounthavong, M. (2016). Cost-effectiveness analysis in health: a practical approach. John Wiley & Sons.

Pearce, D. W. (2016). Cost-benefit analysis. Macmillan International Higher Education.