Contingency Plans to Reduce Cryptosporidium Rate
Shadyville, Sunnydale's neighboring town, has reported an incident rate of 10 new cases in every 100,000 residents for cryptosporidiosis. As a result, the residents have two contingency plans that could assist in probably reducing the rate of cryptosporidium. The first contingency plan involves the removal of pathogenic microorganisms in the area's water system, which will decrease the influenza rate to four new incidents every year. In contrast, the second plan focuses on completely protecting the population against influenza though the mandated, innovative antidote would make participants become extremely lethargic and unable to function for 7 days.
The implementation of a suitable contingency plan to lessen cryptosporidium rate requires extensive analysis of each option on the basis of health outcomes. This process would entail making considerable economic evaluations as well as cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-utility analysis. For the residents of Shadyville, there are three different types of economic evaluations that can be utilized to rationalize the decision between implementing either plan i.e. cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-utility analysis. The use of these three different types of economic evaluations is because of the difference in the manner they approach...
The differences in the approach to benefits will be helpful for these residents since they play an important role in establishing criteria for efficiency.
The costs for Contingency Plan 1 include direct costs such as expenditures related to making changes in town's water system, costs of introduction of the new process, and labor costs for the international health team. The indirect costs include project management costs and costs of unprecedented events during implementation. The direct costs of Contingency Plan 2 are costs for purchasing the antidote, implementation costs, and marketing costs. The indirect costs include costs of medication for the adverse effects and costs of any other unprecedented issue relating to the antidote.
A cost-effectiveness analysis measures outcome in terms of natural units like improvements in functional status or life years saved. In this case, the analyst evaluates costs of two or more clinical treatment options to establish the relative value of one alternative over the other (Santerre & Neun, 2010, p.96). Therefore, outcomes are measured in a cost-effectiveness analysis by examining the value of at least two treatment options for a specific health care goal. In contrast, cost utility analysis measures outcomes…
