Healthcare program article review-Medicine and Health

Healthcare program article review

Summary

The article to be reviewed is actually on the loss aversion cost effectiveness of the healthcare programmes retrieved from the proquest database. The Loss aversion mostly occur at  times when the utility of losses are usually more than the utility of gains. Therefore, it can often be regarded to  as the  emotional fear reaction mostly explaining why the willingness of consumers’  in accepting monetary compensation responsible  to the forgoing of a certain intervention is actually more than their willingness of paying for the same benefit.

Therefore, this article reiterates on the importance that the loss aversion needs to be adequately captured within the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), thereby this obviates the requirement for the kinked threshold value. Thus, according to the author of this article there is need for making changes in health as well as healthcare costs mainly because the loss aversion need to be considered in both the denominator as well as the numerator of the ICER, respectively.

Hence,  this approach is usually very consistent with the objective of the maximization of the population health on the basis of limited healthcare resources. Therefore, this approach do not actually need to consider  the loss aversion within the threshold ICER. Furthermore, it is necessary to note that loss aversion mainly affects the allocation of resource decisions not only by the use of  the ICER, but also by considering the societal values that concern the healthcare resources distribution.

Analysis of the main issues in the  article

The  article considers the theoretical  concept of  the loss  aversion and cost effectiveness in healthcare programmes whereby the change in population health is considered and  also evaluating the results of abandoning or introducing a certain healthcare programme. Hence, there should be  a  succinct evaluation of the impacts of loss aversion when abandoning an already existing healthcare programme (Cleverly, Cleverly & Song, 2010). Therefore, in order to be consistent with the perspective of  the long-term cost effectiveness analysis, there is also  the need of including the health impact of both the immediate emotional reaction as well as the long term reaction to loss.

In addition, given a certain healthcare budget, the cost effectiveness analysis requires to consider the healthcare costs and evaluate how loss aversion can be achieved on the existing healthcare programmes (Shi & Singh, 2008). Hence, the cost effectiveness analysis in offering healthcare programmes requires to capture the loss aversion impact on the healthcare costs.  Therefore, this approach is usually obviating the necessity for the kinked threshold value (Gandjour, 2008). Hence, this article points out that loss aversion not only unambiguously influence the health programmes and their costs, but also its effect, are  supposed to be captured within the ICER.

Moreover, the uncertainty as well as fears that result from loss aversion usually has an impact that is sometimes beyond healthcare provision, an  effect whose inclusion or exclusion is dependent on whether the health utility is maximand or not. However, the loss  aversion impact on costs that are not within the healthcare system requires to be captured only when such costs are of critical significance to the decision makers (Gandjour, 2008).

However, considering the laws  and concepts of benefits it is undoubtedly important to consider that they are considered in this article which is evaluating on the significance of cost effectiveness analysis on the healthcare programmes in the attempts of loss aversion. Therefore, considering the loss aversion on current patient and the cost effectiveness it becomes very crucial to consider the offering of best programmes without negating the quality of such services. For instance, an insurer is not required to exclude a prior agreed insurance package from a patient in the attempts of reducing costs (Cleverly, Cleverly & Song, 2010). This is mainly because it will result to fears, depression and hopelessness of such patients if unable to take care of the treatment costs or terminally ill.

Therefore, there is  always the need of balancing all the factors that influence the offering of the healthcare programmes.  This is due to the fact that carrying out adequate cost effectiveness analysis which ensures that loss aversion is  achieved without compromising the quality of offered healthcare programmes (Shi & Singh, 2008). Thus there  should always the need of evaluating the existing healthcare programmes to ensures that benefits  are achieved to both the patients and the healthcare providers through an efficient cost effectiveness analysis mechanism. Moreover, prior to abandoning any healthcare programme also requires the same procedure in order to ensure that it is no longer feasible.

Recommendations

            Finally, there is the need for recommending that any changes in the healthcare programmes costs in the attempts of loss aversion requires succinct evaluation of the entire factors that regulate the healthcare programme provision as well as cost effectiveness analysis. This is due to the fact that this approach is feasible in the evaluation of most of the healthcare programmes benefits (Cleverly, Cleverly & Song, 2010). Moreover, the healthcare providers should also be considering evaluating their healthcare programmes on the basis of this approach in order to determine whether to continue offering or abandoning it depending of the acquired benefits (Shi & Singh, 2008).

References

Cleverly, W.O. Cleverly, J.O. & Song, P.H. (2010). Essentials of healthcare finance (7th ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Gandjour, A. (2008). Loss aversion and cost effectiveness of healthcare programmes. PharmacoEconomics, 26(11), 895-895-8. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/222357407?accountid=45049

Shi, L. & Singh, D.A. (2008). Delivering healthcare in America: a systems approach (4th ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

 

Written by