Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
I need help in researching and rounding off the topic discussed in the two attached articles.
Please review the articles and provide substantial answers to the questions below. Please include at least four primary, peer reviewed articles as references.
1. Critique the two articles' techniques in comparison with the recommendations from the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
2. Suggest what policy recommendations you would make based on the findings in the two articles. Discuss the economic or other reasons for the policy recommendations.
3. Suggest what cost-effectiveness or other questions about the types of screening might still need to be answered in order to formulate a more rational policy.
I need a substantial amount of information so please include an abstract, Literature Review, Additional sections (for example, Regulations, Legislation, Policies, or Current Interventions). Maybe include information on the current state of regulation for this problem, any relevant policies, and community health interventions that have been done or are being done for this problem.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 17, 2018, 12:55 pm ad1c9bdddf
The first article relates to colorectal cancer screening. The technique focuses on segmenting the population based on income. It has divided the population based on the income of the recipients and potential recipients of colorectal cancer screening. Within these income groups it has shown the cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. The study has also used regional segmentation for identifying the income status of colorectal cancer screening. The Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine is a nonfederal panel with expertise in cost effectiveness analysis in clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement. This panel was convened by the US Public Health Service. The Panel has examined theoretical foundation of cost effectiveness analysis, current practices, and alternative methods used in analysis. Based on these studies the panel has made some recommendations. These recommendations stress on the components belonging in the numerator and denominator of cost effectiveness ratio. It recommends focusing on resource use in the numerator, and valuing health consequences. Further the panel recommends estimation of effectiveness of intervention, and incorporating time preference, discounting, and handling uncertainty. From the point of view of the panel recommendations, instead of focusing on the resource use involved in colorectal cancer screening the study has focused on the income levels of the screening recipients. Similarly, the recommendation is that that the effectiveness of interventions should be studied but the study has divided the population on the basis of income based regions and has focused on which region should receive screenings. Further the study on colorectal cancer screening has divided the regions into developed regions and those areas with differences in treatment coverage. Even though these subjects are pertinent to the area of study, there should be greater focus on time preferences and uncertainty handling as recommended by the panel.
The second article focuses on the cost utility analysis of screening intervals for diabetic retinopathy in patients with diabetic retinopathy I patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The technique used by this study is that it examines the marginal cost effectiveness of various screening intervals for eye diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes. The segmentation used in this study is age and level of glycemic control. The study focuses on patient time spent blind, quality adjusted life years, cost of annual v less frequent screening compared by age and level of hemoglobin. From the point of view of Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommendations, the effort to quantify quality adjusted life-years is commendable. This refers to valuing health consequences. This article has greater focus on cost effectiveness and it is more in sync with the recommendations of the panel. The effectiveness of interventions is however not clear. In addition, the application of the rule of reason leads to a word of caution to organizations that value quality of care. They should consider costs and benefits carefully before ...
This solution explains cost effectiveness in healthcare and medicine. The sources used are also included in the solution.
Are workplace wellness programs effective?
Are workplace wellness programs effective in promoting better health and productivity among employees,including stress reduction? Why or why not? Facts that support the position.View Full Posting Details