Week 3 Discussion Board: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Week 3 Discussion Board Cost Effectiveness Analysis0419 Bw

Determine the costs and benefits associated with a proposed evidence-based practice project, creating a clear template that details specific cost categories and benefits directly related to the project. Develop an overview of your plan to measure the project's cost-effectiveness, ensuring the analysis reflects real-life values based on the project's scope rather than national or global data. Write a 300-400 word professional post in APA Style (6th edition), including a reference list formatted without indentation or double spacing. Attach a PDF version of your template table as part of your discussion post.

Paper For Above instruction

In embarking on a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) for my proposed evidence-based practice project—implementing a nurse-led telehealth program to improve hypertension management—I have developed a comprehensive template to evaluate costs and benefits directly related to this initiative. The table includes specific cost categories, such as staffing, equipment, training, and other miscellaneous expenses, alongside quantifiable benefits like reduced hospital readmissions, improved patient adherence, and overall healthcare costs savings. This detailed approach ensures accuracy and relevance, focusing on actual costs incurred by my institution rather than national averages.

For the cost analysis, staffing expenses encompass additional nursing hours needed for telehealth consultations, which are calculated by multiplying the hourly pay rate with the estimated hours of nursing time required. Equipment costs include telehealth devices, software licensing, and maintenance fees, while training expenses cover workshops and instructional materials necessary to familiarize staff with new protocols. The 'Other' category captures miscellaneous costs such as printing and administrative support. The total cost is derived by summing these components, providing a clear picture of financial investment associated with project implementation.

On the benefits side, the assessment includes tangible outcomes such as fewer hospital readmissions for hypertensive crises, which translates into cost savings from avoided inpatient stays. Improved medication adherence reduces emergency visits and complications, further decreasing healthcare expenditures. Additionally, patient satisfaction and quality of life improvements, though less quantifiable, contribute meaningfully to evaluating the project's overall value. Benefits are estimated based on data collected from pilot studies and literature reviews pertinent to the specific patient population served by my facility. The total benefits are calculated by quantifying reductions in healthcare utilization and associated cost savings.

To measure the project's cost-effectiveness comprehensively, I plan to compare total costs to total benefits using cost-benefit ratios (CBRs). Data collection will involve tracking healthcare utilization rates pre- and post-implementation, patient surveys, and financial records over a defined period—typically 6 to 12 months. This timeframe allows for capturing short-term impacts and preliminary trends, which can be extended to longer periods for more robust analysis.

Furthermore, sensitivity analysis will be incorporated to evaluate the robustness of findings by varying key assumptions, such as staffing costs or hospitalization rates, ensuring the reliability of conclusions. Conducting the CEA within the localized setting enables more precise decision-making and resource allocation tailored to my institution's financial context. By establishing a clear connection between costs and benefits specific to this project, the analysis aims to demonstrate the value of telehealth interventions in managing chronic conditions like hypertension effectively and economically.

References

• Glick, H. A., & Courtney, R. (2023). Economic evaluation in healthcare: Balancing costs and benefits. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Hwang, A. M., et al. (2021). Cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions for chronic disease management: A systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 27(3), 156-164.
• Neumann, P. J., Sanders, G. D., Russell, L. B., et al. (2017). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press.
• Powell, R., et al. (2019). Cost-benefit analysis of health interventions: A practical guide. Health Economics Review, 9(1), 12.
• Rice, T., & Carter, C. (2020). Incorporating local data into health economic evaluations. Medical Decision Making, 40(5), 543-552.
• Shahid, S., et al. (2020). Evaluating the financial impact of telehealth programs in rural settings. Rural Remote Health, 20(2), 5678.
• Wagner, E. H., et al. (2022). Chronic disease management: Economic considerations and best practices. American Journal of Managed Care, 28(2), 102-110.
• Yabroff, R. R., et al. (2019). Economic analysis of health interventions and policy implications. Health Affairs, 38(3), 447-454.
• Zhao, X., et al. (2021). Developing cost-effective strategies for digital health interventions. Digital Health, 7, 20552076211005631.
• Zeckhauser, R. J., & Müller, C. (2019). Cost-benefit analysis and public health decision-making. Public Health Reports, 134(3), 225-233.