Southern California Costs and Results of Alternative Policy Solutions Essay

User Generated


Health Medical

University of Southern California


Health Outcomes and Cost-Efficiency Paper

Over the last few years, we have seen improvements in the health of various populations. Although most countries have benefited, the gaps in health outcomes among different countries remains. Additionally, as the average life expectancy increases, there is an urgent need to ensure that health outcomes are achievable at a price we can all afford. Review the following report from The Economist, which analyzes how and why health outcomes and spending differ in 166 countries worldwide. The report also shows that health care often delivers outcomes that are at odds with their cost. The report is free; however, you will need to register on the Economist website to view it ( (Links to an external site.)

After reviewing the materials for this week and The Economist report, write a paper that discusses two arguments supporting and two arguments opposing the use of health outcomes in a cost-effectiveness methodology.

Your paper should be 3–4 pages in length and include support from the required readings, as well as at least one outside source.

  • ALL citations and references needs to be APA 7th edition format.

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

View attached explanation and answer. Let me know if you have any questions.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Economic perspectives are increasingly acknowledged in health and health
assessment, and health policy and planning have become part of the economic view. As a
tool for tackling efficiency problems in the allotment of scarce health care resources, a costeffectiveness analysis was utilized as a way for assessing relative costs and health gains from
various (and frequently competing) health therapies. Several national experiences have
proven that, in addition to other information, cost-effectiveness information can be utilized
to support various policy decisions. It was used, for example, to decide which drugs should
be compensated by public finances.
The general CEA is designed to solve several of the problems noted earlier in the
deployment of sectoral CEA. One of the features of sectoral CEA is the identification of
current allocation inadequacies as well as new measures. Another desired feature is that it
is displayed in a style that can be translated as much as feasible across settings so that as
many decision-makers as feasible would benefit from the result (Tsevat & Moriates, 2018).
To compare the costs and results of alternative policy solutions, cost-efficiency
analyzes are employed. Each resulting value for money corresponds to the quantity of
greater health per extra resource unit spent. To inform resource allocation decisions and
evaluate efficiencies of various health interventions, many countries employ cost-effective
analyzes and cost-effective ratios. The Commission advised that the estimated worth of a
year of a healthy life, per capita, should be spent on an intervention which resulted in at
least one more year of healthy life per capita (Tsevat & Moriates, 2018).
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a quantitative tool that assesses the expenditures
of solutions compared to the amount of value that they provide. CEA provides a systematic
approach of assessing therapies to discover those that give optimum therapeutic

significance per extra unit of expenditure. CEA can be used for precautionary, monitoring,
and therapeutic interventions. Outcomes measured by such assessments can also include
death benefits, discomfort decrease, or increased quality of life after one surgery. CEA is
one sort of economic assessment used in clinical research.
Nevertheless, experience in using GDP-based criteria in-country judgment reveals
that the country is unspecific. Moreover, mainstream economists typically employed to
generate economic-efficiency ratios can be erroneous (Phelps, 2019). This can lead to
mistaken decisions on how health resources are spent. A comprehensive decision-making
approach to the information should not be used in solitary focus on a particular predefined
threshold, along with other aspects, such as budgetary impact and practicality. While
systems mainly are undeniably insightful in evaluating bang for the buc...

Really useful study material!


Related Tags