Article Critique: Cost-Benefit Analysis and US Healthcare | MyPaperHub.com

Article Critique: Cost-Benefit Analysis and US Healthcare

Article Critique: Cost-Benefit Analysis and US Healthcare

Posted on Jun 2018:- By: PaperHub
keywords,blog

Introduction

            The effectiveness of a healthcare system is achieved through a concrete adherence to affordability among the targeted audience who are the citizens of a given country. However, the issue of affordability has been the main story within the health industry of the United States. The American government has been at the peak of ensuring that the cost of health becomes affordable to the American population regardless of both the economic and social classes. Here, many stories have always been formulated at different levels with more parties portraying their understanding of the given issues within the American healthcare system. Philosophical arguments have also been promoted in ensuring appreciable understanding of the subject matter (Reinhardt, 2009). In this case, the analysis achieves a concrete response to the various philosophical arguments behind the given topic.  Relevant articles are explored to ascertain the credibility of the achieved arguments within texts in comparison to the actual understanding of the American health system. 

Article Summary

            The article “Cost-effectiveness analysis' and US healthcare” by Reinhardt (2009) achieves its content by exploring various arguments concerning comparative effective analysis and cost-effective analysis as far as the healthcare system of the United States is concerned. It focuses on elaborating the different arguments about the cost of the American healthcare system as far as the established economic stimulus bill is concerned. It elaborates about the different perspectives achieved by different parties concerning the cost-effectiveness of the American health system as brought about by the proposed amount by the stimulus bill. Reinhardt emphasizes the need to have a clear understanding of the cost position of the health system of the United States (Reinhardt, 2009).

The author acknowledged that indeed the different perceptions on the cost-effectiveness of the American healthcare system are based on various reasons that only focus on a single direction of argumentation. In fact, according to the Reinhardt (2009), the vehement concerns achieved from the numerous reactions in the cost of healthcare within the United States is based on the proposed ten billion dollars in handling comparative effectiveness analysis (Reinhardt, 2009). However, as achieved by the author, the irrelevant reactions should not be based on the engaged cost but the purpose that the proposed amount is going to handle. In that essence, the article explains on the importance of the achieved cost of promoting a comparative effective analysis by handling the different views concerning the influence that the bill would have on the integrity of the effectiveness of the cost of healthcare system within the United States.

Comparison of Strength and Weaknesses within the Article

The nature of the achieved approaches within the article can be viewed at different angles as far as their effectiveness in promoting a promising healthcare system is concerned. The article has proposed different approaches to illustrating the healthcare system of the United States. The main approach that has been achieved by the author of the article is based on the importance of the promoted Stimulus Bill in handling the effectiveness of the medical approaches within the United States. The article has reasoned on the importance of the bill as opposed to the engaged suggestions on the influence of the bill on the effectiveness of the healthcare cost within the country (Reinhardt, 2009). Ideologically, the achieved bill can be viewed in two directions.

The author’s approach to the importance of the bill valid based on the impact that the bill would have on the effectiveness of the medical decisions as would be achieved by the American health care professionals. The comparative effective analysis engaged in the stimulus bill is aimed at ensuring that the promoted healthcare attempts achieve zero error and promote effectiveness at all levels (Reinhardt, 2009). In this essence, given the intention of the established bill and the attached cost of ensuring the implementation and the success of the bill, it is relevant to argue on view of the author’s approach.

Comparatively, even though the achieved approach to the economic stimulus bill would positively impact the quality of the healthcare initiatives within the United States, it is evident that such attempts would appreciate the cost of handling healthcare matters within the country (Reinhardt, 2009). Of course, one of the major initiatives of the health management system within the United States is to increase the level of healthcare service with a reduced cost of such engaged healthcare services for the American populations. In this essence, the weakness of the proposed healthcare approach within the article in handling quality healthcare is based on the increased cost of healthcare delivery attached to the initiative.

Assessment of Healthcare Cost-Benefit Analysis and Cost-Effective Analysis

The cost-effective and cost-benefit analysis are the best approaches that can be utilized in evaluating the engaged cost and the relevant outcome of a given cost to an established project. The cost-benefit analysis focuses on the establishment of the appreciable decision-making process. It emphasizes the relevance of understanding the relationship between an engaged action and its attached cost. In that, the engagement of valuable decisions is achieved based on the manner in which the attached cost relate to the promoted situation or activity. On the other hand, the cost-effective analysis is normally done in response to the importance that an attached cost on a given activity would render to the outcome of the activity. In this essence as far as the application of both the cost-benefit analysis and cost-effective analysis is concerned, it is acknowledging that the two can be perfectly utilized in promoting a concrete understanding of cost and quality decisions in handling healthcare decisions (Udvarhelyi, Colditz, Rai, & Epstein, 1992).

The cost-effective analysis can be used in ensuring appreciable understanding of the best decision that can be factored in handling an engagement of a given cost to the on a healthcare initiative. As far as the issues of cost-effective implementation of healthcare decisions within the United States is concerned, the application of the cost-effective analysis would be used in handling such factors within the healthcare industry (Udvarhelyi, Colditz, Rai, & Epstein, 1992). Relevantly, a combination of the cost-effective and cost-benefit analysis can ensure a credible outcome in the establishment of a comprehensive decision in the engagement of both quality and the attached costs. Here, the achieved decision can be influenced based on the impact that the engaged cost would have on the outcome of the implemented issue within the health leadership  

Conclusion

            The health position of the United States has been having some irregularities associated with the cost-effectiveness and the establishment of quality healthcare approaches. Different ideologies have been factored into ensuring an appreciable decision that would promote a positive result in the implementation of cost-effective strategies. The major issue, here, has been based on the manner in which the engaged costs of increasing the healthcare service would result in a lower cost of achieving the healthcare services. Of course, the engagement of healthcare attempts is normally associated with economic values. In that, the economy of a given nation is built on a healthy society (Reinhardt, 2009). For that matter, it is the ultimate responsibility of the government of any nation to promote appreciable decision that would ensure a healthy society. The government should ensure a health free initiative as a strategy for promoting a better economic growth.

However, this has not been the case within the United States, the government has been imposing legal policies that call for an affordable healthcare with minimal concern to the appreciable decision-making process, particularly, an inclusive decision making the initiative. In this essence as far as the witnessed irregularities in the management of the affordability of the healthcare services within the United States is concerned, it is encouraging that philosophical assumption to be given a chance in understanding the best way on the issue.  The proposed philosophical assumption, for that matter, is the encouragement of both the cost-effective and cost-benefit analysis in encouraging concrete decision on the relationship between the healthcare cost and the need to invest on quality and error-free healthcare approaches (Udvarhelyi, Colditz, Rai, & Epstein, 1992)