Assignment 1: Economic Evaluation This Module Taught You

Assignment 1 Economic Evaluationthis Module Taught You That Economic

Compare and contrast the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), the cost-utility analysis (CUA), and the cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Find an article discussing a program evaluation where at least one of these methods was used. Explain why the evaluator chose this specific analysis and how the findings were applied to the overall evaluation. Based on your program evaluation plan in M5 Assignment 2 RA 2, determine which of these methods would be the best fit for a social agency or human services program and justify your choice.

Paper For Above instruction

Economic evaluation plays an essential role in assessing the efficiency and value of programs within social and human services. The three predominant methods—cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and cost-benefit analysis (CBA)—serve distinct purposes and are selected based on the specific context and goals of an evaluation.

Comparison of CEA, CUA, and CBA

The cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compares the relative costs and outcomes of different programs or interventions. It measures outcomes in natural units, such as cases prevented or services delivered, providing a straightforward understanding of which program achieves desired results at the lowest cost. Its main strength is simplicity and clarity in decision-making when outcomes are easy to quantify.

The cost-utility analysis (CUA) extends CEA by incorporating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as measures of outcomes, emphasizing the quality of life and health outcomes. This approach is particularly beneficial when evaluating health or social programs that impact the well-being of individuals beyond mere counts of outcomes, integrating a broader sense of utility into the overall assessment.

The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) converts both costs and benefits into monetary terms, allowing for a direct comparison of the total economic value generated by a program. It provides comprehensive insight into whether a program adds economic value to society. Its advantage lies in facilitating policy decisions where resource allocation needs to be justified in monetary terms, though it can be challenging to accurately monetize all benefits and costs.

Application of an Evaluation Method in the Literature

For example, a study evaluating a substance abuse treatment program employed CBA to determine whether the benefits — including reduced criminal activity, improved employment prospects, and health outcomes — outweigh the costs of implementation (Smith & Johnson, 2020). The evaluator chose CBA due to the need to justify the program’s funding by demonstrating its overall economic return to society. The findings of the CBA illustrated a positive net monetary benefit, which supported continued investment and policy endorsement.

Application of Analysis Methods to Program Evaluation Plans

In developing a program evaluation plan for a social agency or human services program, the most appropriate method depends on the specific objectives and context. For programs primarily aimed at improving health or quality of life, CUA may be best because it captures both quality and quantity of life improvements, facilitating comparisons across diverse health outcomes. Conversely, if the goal is to justify the program’s overall economic value to stakeholders or policymakers, CBA would be more suitable since it quantifies benefits in monetary terms, providing clear economic evidence for resource allocation decisions.

Conclusion

In sum, understanding the differences among CEA, CUA, and CBA enables evaluators to select the most appropriate method aligned with their objectives. The choice hinges on the nature of outcomes assessed and the need for economic valuation, ultimately ensuring informed decision-making for social and human services programs.

References

• Smith, A., & Johnson, B. (2020). Economic Evaluation of Substance Abuse Treatment Programs: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. Journal of Public Health Policy, 41(3), 330-345.
• Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W. (2015). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Hanmer, J., & Kind, P. (2019). The role of utilities and quality of life in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics, 37(3), 297-308.
• Higgins, J. P., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., et al. (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.0.
• Thokala, P., et al. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value in Health, 19(5), 602-611.
• Fone, D., et al. (2017). Economic evaluation in public health: Methods and applications. Public Health, 147, 107-115.
• Neumann, P. J., et al. (2016). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford University Press.
• Russell, L. B., et al. (2015). The role of economic evaluation in evidence-based decision making. Medical Decision Making, 35(2), 159-166.
• Brazier, J., et al. (2017). Good practice guidelines for the use of utility measures in health economic evaluations. Health Economics, 26(11), 364-378.
• World Health Organization. (2019). Cost-Effectiveness and Strategic Planning in Health. Report by WHO.