Health is an important component of any society. A healthy society results in a productive population. Subsequently, the health sector receives considerable attention from governments and citizens regarding funding. However, funding to the health sectors is quite diverse across countries. One of the tools used to assess the level of investment in the sector is the use of health outcomes. Most countries opt to invest in health programs that offer the most significant health outcomes to ensure value for money. Subsequently, it is prudent to assess the cons and pros of this approach. The following paper assesses the pros and cons of using health outcomes cost-effectively.
An argument for a cost-effective approach
One of the advantages of using the cost-effective approach in the health sector is the ability to explore the available resources optimally. The health sector is a key component of any successful institution. However, communities have limited resources to finance society’s health sectors and other features (Woods et al., 2016). Therefore, it is crucial that society leverage the available resources to address the most pressing demands. Subsequently, within the health sector, it is prudent for society to target its resources towards the features that result in the best and most significant impact on society (Woods et al., 2016). This approach is based on Utilitarian ethics. Utilitarian ethics assert that individuals should pursue activities that rest for the betterment of society. Therefore, the health outcomes with the most benefit to society should be prioritized. Moreover, prioritizing the outcomes with the most impact offers society an opportunity to leverage its stakeholders’ input in addressing the health outcomes. Subsequently, this enables society to pool resources and mitigate the health needs of its people.
The cost-effective approach is also essential in identifying the most efficient health intervention measures. The health needs of society are continually evolving and changing. This feature can be highlighted by the development of various strains of the covid-19 virus in recent years (Kashte et al., 2021). Therefore, the health society’s continually shifting state and nature require that the concerned parties identify the most efficient interventions. Subsequently, a cost-effective measure is ideal in singling out effective health approaches. An effective health intervention results in high health rates, low hospital readmissions, and the lowest price (EIU, n.d.). Subsequently, this feature can be replicated across the rest of society after identifying a cost-effective intervention. This approach ensures that the community develops a healthy society while also offering an opportunity to leverage its resources optimally.
Arguments against the cost-efficient approach
One of the arguments against the cost-effective approach is the inability to measure health outcomes accurately. Governments often partner with the private sectors to ensure sacksful health care delivery. Subsequently, to ensure that the service is delivered, the government often leverages the use of subsidies to incentivize the private sector. However, poor application of the measurements ensures that the health sector becomes inefficient, making it difficult to address the community’s health outcomes. Evidence of poor measurement approaches is highlighted by the development of cross-subsidies across services (Sumah et al., 2016). Subsequently, some healthcare providers receive significant reimbursements for some services, while some services are not reimbursed. This feature distorts the supply and efficiency of the health care services provided. Subsequently, the healthcare sector is likely to focus its resources on the sectors with the highest reimbursements without considering the demand for these services, hurting the community’s health outcomes.
Adopting a cost-effective approach to healthcare also ensures that the health sector is not motivated to improve its services. This feature ensures that the community cannot address its health outcomes effectively. The inefficiency caused by the cost-effective approach to health care can be addressed through the impact of the approach on the hospitals. The cost-effective approach ensures that efficient health providers are punished rather than rewarded for their efforts. For instance, healthcare providers that institute programs that lower the demand for highly reimbursed services will likely see a drop in revenue (Katkade et al., 2018). This element is bound to limit the health institution’s ability to increase its staff and offer more services. Subsequently, the cost-effective approach ensures that inefficient healthcare providers do not have a significant incentive to offer better quality services. Subsequently, rather than improve, the health outcomes of society drop and become difficult to achieve.
In conclusion, the paper offers an assessment of the pros and cons of using the cost-effective approach when addressing health outcomes in society. This assessment is critical because it is evident that countries focus their resources on different health outcomes. The advantage of the cost-effectiveness in addressing health outcomes is the ability of the cost-effective approach to leverage the existing limited resources and identify the most effective health interventions. However, the drawbacks of the intervention include challenges in accurately measuring health outcomes and costs. Additionally, the approach creates inefficiency in the health sector. The research shows that the cost-effective approach in healthcare based on health outcomes offers both advantages and disadvantages.
References
EIU. (n.d.). Healthcare outcomes index 2014 – The Economist Intelligence Unit. Www.eiu.com. Retrieved September 27, 2022, from https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=Healthoutcome2014
Kashte, S., Gulbake, A., El-Amin III, S. F., & Gupta, A. (2021). COVID-19 vaccines: rapid development, implications, challenges, and future prospects. Human Cell, p. 34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13577-021-00512-4
Katkade, V. B., Sanders, K. N., & Zou, K. H. (2018). Real-world data: an opportunity to supplement existing evidence for the use of long-established medicines in health care decision making. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, Volume 11, 295–304. https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.s160029
Sumah, A. M., Baatiema, L., & Abimbola, S. (2016). The impacts of decentralisation on health-related equity: A systematic review of the evidence. Health Policy, 120(10), 1183–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.09.003
Woods, B., Revill, P., Sculpher, M., & Claxton, K. (2016). Country-Level Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Initial Estimates and the Need for Further Research. Value in Health, 19(8), 929–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.02.017
write