Running head: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND US HEALTHCARE 1

Cost-Benefit Analysis and US Healthcare

Name

Institution

Date
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND US HEALTHCARE 2

Cost-Benefit Analysis and US Healthcare

Introduction

The effectiveness of a healthcare system is achieved through a concrete adherence to

affordability among the targeted audience who are the citizens of a given country. Of course,

the issue of affordability has been the main story within the health industry of the United States.

The American government has been at the peak of ensuring that the cost of health becomes

affordable to the American population regardless of both the economic and social classes. Here,

many stories have always been formulated at different levels with more parties portraying their

understanding of the given issues within the American healthcare system. Philosophical

arguments have also been promoted in ensuring appreciable understanding of the subject matter

(Reinhardt, 2009). In this case, the analysis achieves a concrete response to the various

philosophical arguments behind the given topic. Relevant articles are explored to ascertain the

credibility of the achieved arguments within texts in comparison to the actual understanding of

the American health system.

Article Summary

The article “Cost-effectiveness analysis' and US healthcare” by Reinhardt (2009)

achieves its content by exploring various arguments concerning comparative effective analysis

and cost-effective analysis as far as the healthcare system of the United States is concerned. It

focuses on elaborating the different arguments about the cost of the American healthcare

system as far as the established economic stimulus bill is concerned. It elaborates about the

different perspectives achieved by different parties concerning the cost-effectiveness of the

American health system as brought about by the proposed amount by the stimulus bill.

Reinhardt emphasizes the need to have a clear understanding of the cost position of the health

system of the United States (Reinhardt, 2009).

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND US HEALTHCARE 3

The author acknowledged that indeed the different perceptions on the cost-effectiveness

of the American healthcare system are based on various reasons that only focus on a single

direction of argumentation. In fact, according to the Reinhardt (2009), the vehement concerns

achieved from the numerous reactions in the cost of healthcare within the United States is based

on the proposed ten billion dollars in handling comparative effectiveness analysis (Reinhardt,

2009). However, as achieved by the author, the irrelevant reactions should not be based on the

engaged cost but the purpose that the proposed amount is going to handle. In that essence, the

article explains on the importance of the achieved cost of promoting a comparative effective

analysis by handling the different views concerning the influence that the bill would have on

the integrity of the effectiveness of the cost of healthcare system within the United States.

Comparison of Strength and Weaknesses within the Article

The nature of the achieved approaches within the article can be viewed at different

angles as far as their effectiveness in promoting a promising healthcare system is concerned.

The article has proposed different approaches in illustrating the healthcare system of the United

States. The main approach that has been achieved by the author of the article is based on the

importance of the promoted Stimulus Bill in handling the effectiveness of the medical

approaches within the United States. The article has reasoned on the importance of the bill as

opposed to the engaged suggestions on the influence of the bill on the effectiveness of the

healthcare cost within the country (Reinhardt, 2009). Ideologically, the achieved bill can be

viewed in two directions.

The author’s approach to the importance of the bill valid based on the impact that the

bill would have on the effectiveness of the medication decisions as would be achieved by the

American health care professionals. The comparative effective analysis engaged within the

stimulus bill is aimed at ensuring that the promoted healthcare attempts achieve zero error and

promote effectiveness at all levels (Reinhardt, 2009). In this essence, given the intention of the
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND US HEALTHCARE 4

established bill and the attached cost of ensuring the implementation and the success of the bill,

it is relevant to argue on view of the author’s approach.

Comparatively, even though the achieved approach to the economic stimulus bill would

positively impact the quality of the healthcare initiatives within the United States, it is evident

that such attempts would appreciate the cost of handling healthcare matters within the country

(Reinhardt, 2009). Of course, one of the major initiatives of the health management system

within the United States is to increase the level of healthcare service with a reduced cost of

such engaged healthcare services for the American populations. In this essence, the weakness

of the proposed healthcare approach within the article in handling quality healthcare is based

on the increased cost of healthcare delivery attached to the initiative.

Assessment of Healthcare Cost-Benefit Analysis and Cost-Effective Analysis

The cost-effective and cost-benefit analysis are the best approaches that can be utilized

in evaluating the engaged cost and the relevant outcome of a given cost to an established

project. The cost-benefit analysis focuses on the establishment of the appreciable decision-

making process. It emphasizes the relevance of understanding the relationship between an

engaged action and its attached cost. In that, the engagement of valuable decisions is achieved

based on the manner in which the attached cost relate to the promoted situation or activity. On

the other hand, the cost-effective analysis is normally done in response to the importance that

an attached cost on a given activity would render to the outcome of the activity. In this essence

as far as the application of both the cost-benefit analysis and cost-effective analysis is

concerned, it is acknowledging that the two can be perfectly utilized in promoting a concrete

understanding of cost and quality decisions in handling healthcare decisions (Udvarhelyi,

Colditz, Rai, & Epstein, 1992).

The cost-effective analysis can be used in ensuring appreciable understanding of the

best decision that can be factored in handling an engagement of a given cost to the on a
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND US HEALTHCARE 5

healthcare initiative. As far as the issues of cost-effective implementation of healthcare

decisions within the United States is concerned, the application of the cost-effective analysis

would be used in handling such factors within the healthcare industry (Udvarhelyi, Colditz,

Rai, & Epstein, 1992). Relevantly, a combination of the cost-effective and cost-benefit analysis

can ensure a credible outcome in the establishment of a comprehensive decision in the

engagement of both quality and the attached costs. Here, the achieved decision can be

influenced based on the impact that the engaged cost would have on the outcome of the

implemented issue within the health leadership

Conclusion

The health position of the United States has been having some irregularities associated

with the cost-effectiveness and the establishment of quality healthcare approaches. Different

ideologies have been factored in ensuring an appreciable decision that would promote a

positive result in the implementation of cost-effective strategies. The major issue, here, has

been based on the manner in which the engaged costs of increasing the healthcare service would

result in a lower cost of achieving the healthcare services. Of course, the engagement of

healthcare attempts is normally associated with economic values. In that, the economy of a

given nation is built on a healthy society (Reinhardt, 2009). For that matter, it is the ultimate

responsibility of the government of any nation to promote appreciable decision that would

ensure a healthy society. The government should ensure a health free initiative as a strategy for

promoting a better economic growth.

However, this has not been the case within the United States, the government has been

imposing legal policies that call for an affordable healthcare with minimal concern to the

appreciable decision-making process, particularly, an inclusive decision making the initiative.

In this essence as far as the witnessed irregularities in the management of the affordability of

the healthcare services within the United States is concerned, it is encouraging that
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND US HEALTHCARE 6

philosophical assumption to be given a chance in understanding the best way on the issue. The

proposed philosophical assumption, for that matter, is the encouragement of both the cost-

effective and cost-benefit analysis in encouraging concrete decision on the relationship

between the healthcare cost and the need to invest on quality and error-free healthcare

approaches (Udvarhelyi, Colditz, Rai, & Epstein, 1992).

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND US HEALTHCARE 7

References

Reinhardt, U. E. (2009). Cost-effectiveness analysis’ and US healthcare. New York Times.

Udvarhelyi, I. S., Colditz, G. A., Rai, A., & Epstein, A. M. (1992). Cost-effectiveness and cost-

benefit analyses in the medical literature: are the methods being used correctly? Annals

of Internal Medicine, 116(3), 238-244.