Discussion 2

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

320

Subject

Economics

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by ChefThunderKingfisher25

Report
Hello classmates, In general, the purpose of the figure is to show the audience how much you spend for any medical intervention (cost or factor input) to get the best result represented by survival or quality of life (Chandra et al., 2011). If we considered the points from A to F as 6 different interventions to treat one condition, we will see the following: Point B represents the highest expenditure with the best survival rate. Point A represents the 2 nd highest expenditure with the lowest survival rate. Point C represents the 3 rd highest expenditure with 2 nd in survival rate (not far from point B). Point D represents the lowest expenditure with the lowest survival rate matching point A. Point E represents the second lowest expenditure with little improvement on point D. Finally, point F represents the 4 th in rank in expenditure but is still less than point E. In my opinion, there are three interesting points in the figure, D, C, and B. Point D considered the old fashion treatment method cheap in terms of money but still considered to show a certain amount of efficacy. Point C is considered the one treatment in the middle that balances between high efficacy or survival rate and reasonable expenditure to get the best result. Point B is considered the new intervention or treatment that cost the patient or insurance almost double the amount of money of treatment C, but the survival rate`s improvement is not high from treatment C. According to the interpretations above, the question is, is the improvement in survival rate gained by treatment B worth spending double the amount of money on the current treatment (C) offer? and willing to replace it? My answer is no, not in the current cost margin especially if we considered that the amount spent on treatment B is enough to treat two patients not only one
and the survival rate will double in this case. But I can consider it as a future option only in a decrease in its cost to match treatment C or a little bit more. While treatment A is considered a very disappointing intervention since it costs a lot of money with very poor outcomes in term of survival rate that match exactly intervention D which cost too far less than it. In conclusion, despite my interpretations looking so simple, a lot of factors comparative analysis studies usually depend on not shown in the figure and just gave a comprehensive idea about how we could compare two or more interventions regarding cost and survival rate. These factors may include the disease itself, the kind of medical interventions, the patient’s age, medical response, etc. that should take into consideration when executing the comparative analysis. References Chandra, A., Jena, A., Skinner, J., Autor, D., Garber, A., Jones, C., List, J., & Taylor, T. (2011). The Pragmatist’s Guide to Comparative Effectiveness Research . https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w16990/w16990.pdf
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help