A Case Study of Hospital Setting: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Cost-utility Analysis & Cost-benefit Analysis

This case study explores the use of cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis in a hospital setting. It discusses the importance of rationing healthcare services and how these analyses can help in reducing health issues and improving the quality of life for patients. The study focuses on the ABS medical centre in UAE and specifically looks at the management of childhood diarrhea and dehydration. The findings show that cost-effective interventions, such as the rotavirus vaccine approach + IMCI, can significantly reduce mortality rates. The cost-utility analysis highlights the importance of considering the quality of life when evaluating healthcare interventions. The cost-benefit analysis measures the cost and benefits of interventions in monetary terms. Overall, these analyses provide valuable insights for healthcare management and decision-making.

1
Case Study
Topic: A Case Study of Hospital Setting: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Cost-utility Analysis
& Cost-benefit Analysis

2
Case Study
Introduction
In the hospital, setting the rationing is imperative to maintain the quality of health care
services as well as improving the quality of life (Okafor & Ekwunife, 2017). The rationing in
health care refers to restraining the health care services to a few people due to limited economic
resources (Phavichitr, Puwdee & Tantibhaedhyangkul, 2013). According to some other authors,
the rationing refers to utilizing the available economic resources to provide the best health care
services (Phavichitr et al., 2013). Unfortunately, I have observed that the ineffective practices in
health care lead to economic as well as health issues in the hospital setting. As a result, the
quality of life among patient comes into danger. The effective rationing can be done through
cost-benefit analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis. In ABS medical centre
UAE, mortality rate or child due to dehydration is higher. It is one of the leading causes of death
in the current times and needs particular attention. The current paper elaborated how the cost-
benefit analysis, cost-utility analysis as cost-effectiveness analysis help in reducing the problem.
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Cost-effective analysis anticipates the health and cost gains of alternative intervention.
Cost-effectiveness analysis helps in determining the inexpensive interventions design to
eradicate or reduce the disease burden substantially. It elaborates how much life (quantity) can
be saved through particular treatment/intervention. Such as in ABS medical centre the
considerable number of children died due to dehydration and diarrhea. To control the mortality
rate due to diarrhea among children numerous cost-effective intervention has been used in the
hospital such as no treatment approach (NTA), the integrated management of childhood illness
for diarrhea (IMCI), Rotavirus + IMCI, and preventative approach with rotavirus vaccine.

3
Case Study
All the interventions were cost-effective, but the rotavirus vaccine approach + IMCI was most
effective (AED 294.22/DALY averted) for the management of childhood diarrhea concerning the
cost and health outcomes. The literature is consistent with the findings, as according to Okafor,
and Ekwunife, (2017) the rotavirus vaccine approach + IMCI intervention found to be most
effective in controlling diarrhea among children.
Cost-utility analysis
The cost-utility analysis determines the cost concerning the utilities, particularly quality
of life. The cost-utility analysis considered the most controversial as it is complicated to
determine the health improvements in values perceived by the individuals. Dissimilar to cost-
benefit analysis, the cost-utility analysis also focuses on how much life has been saved and how
much years the survivors will spend a perfect life. It primarily focuses on the quality of life
adjusted years. As mentioned earlier, in ABS medical centre setting, the children have been
given Oral rehydration therapy (ORT) for diarrhea prevention, which was found to be least
expensive economically. Oral rehydration therapy (ORT) has not found to be effective in
eradicating the incidence but has reduced the higher mortality rates.
The ratio of quality-adjusted life year after using ORT was –AED 1,131,369.45. The total
incremental reduction in cost for diarrhea was found to be 0.136578%, which saved AED
70,391,970.69 within five years. The substantial empirical data supported that the ORT was an
effective step to on exploring the neglected opportunity for improving health and reducing
mortality rates. The significant difference between cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility
analysis can be defined in terms of quantity and quality. The cost-effectiveness analysis

4
Case Study
primarily focuses on the quantity of life saved; in contrast, the cost-utility analysis focuses on the
quality of life.
Cost-benefit analysis
The cost-benefit analysis measures the cost and benefits of a course of action or
interventions in monetary terms. Cost-benefit analyses help in comparing two alternative
treatments using a summary metric of net monetary benefits that separately distinguish the
benefit and cost. In my hospital, setting the rotavirus vaccine has been implemented to control
the mortality rate of diarrhea. The Rotavirus vaccine was not found to effective cost wise, but
provided better health outcomes and reduces the severity of the disease and significantly reduced
the mortality rates. Rotavirus vaccine was found to be effective as compared to probiotic or drug
treatment.
Conclusion
The diarrhea is the one the most leading health issue in ABS medical centre setting.
Numerous children with dehydration and diarrhea admitted each day and died. The
implementation of the cost-effective analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis help
to determine the current issues and help in making further progress controlling the issues. The
significance of all the analysis is significant, and none can be ignored. It was a very helpful
practice to identify the misbalance between cost and health demand of the patents. After
computing all the analysis, it became easier to make a management plan for the betterment of the
health care services in ABS medical centre setting.

5
Case Study
References
Okafor, C. E., and Ekwunife, O. I. (2017). Cost-effectiveness analysis of diarrhea management
approaches in Nigeria: A decision analytical model. PLoSNegl Trop
Dis ;11(12):e0006124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006124. PubMed PMID: 29261649;
PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5752040.
Phavichitr, N., Puwdee, P., Tantibhaedhyangkul, R. (2013). Cost-benefit analysis of the probiotic
treatment of children hospitalized for acute diarrhea in Bangkok, Thailand. Southeast
Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2013 Nov;44(6):1065-71.