Economic Evaluation of Anxiety Free Program

ECONOMIC EVALUATION
2019

Economic intervention
Answer 1
There are multiple programs along with the components of the project that are used in the
process of evaluation where the focus is mostly on the inputs and outputs. There are various
methods implemented in evaluation so as to measure actual and expected changes in the
project and affect such indicators that are aligned with health service delivery and
technologies during the life cycle of the project.
When there is extensive competition prevailing in the industry and the resources are also
limited then economic evaluations are taken into consideration for it allows the users to make
various constructive decisions regarding resource allocation, defining priorities and designing
services. There are multiple benefits derived from economic evaluation such as cost-
effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability. Following are the ways in which economic
evaluation is useful for any project: 1) economic evaluation assists in the allocation of
available limited resources in the best possible way and also offers the decisions so as to
make desirable decisions; and 2) it also offers an estimate of the resources that are to be
required so as to begin, establish or expand a project. Hence, the Anxiety free program will
be assessed in an effective manner when economic evaluation is done.
Answer 2
Yes, there is sufficient evidence on the efficiency of interventions which can be learned from
the study. The intervention will help in designing strategies that will help the school students
to get rid of anxiety. The effectiveness of intervention can be witnessed from the overall case
where identification of adolescents at school is done who has a major tendency of developing
anxiety. In this case, interventions allow in the following ways: 1) it helps in determining
efficiency and equity of such anxiety free projects; 2) it offers details regarding upcoming
health interventions so as to combat anxiety; 3) it allows the project manager in delivering
particular health intervention by means of deciding the best possible method; and; 4) it offers
all the information regarding funding decisions concerned with cost-efficient alignment of
resources with evidence to not just donors but policymakers as well. Effectiveness of
intervention is not equal in all the cases. Therefore, cost-effective analysis is appropriate
enough to offer details regarding health technologies, new health interventions or existing
treatments used in the health service delivery systems (Sekhon, Catwright & Francis, 2017).
The cost-effective analysis is also beneficial for raising awareness about an upcoming
2

Economic intervention
technology or health intervention. The cost-effective analysis also offers the necessary
required details regarding the ever-rising access to health care providers and focuses on
optimum utilization of limited health care resources in a project (Sander & Kwong, 2010).
All outcomes cannot be measured in terms of monetary outcomes because some outcomes are
directly linked to providing result and the same is not expressible in terms of money. The
services that are desired to bring result and are not chargeable, the same cannot be treated in
monetary terms. However, the outcomes can be ascertained as quality adjusted life-years
because it is the result that matters and brings correction. Hence, the intervention brings the
desired adjusted life years.
Answer 3
There is a huge difference between cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. CUA
evaluates the quality of life and incorporates the same in the measurement of benefits. The
gain in an expected lifespan of the anxiety-free project arising out of an intervention is
measured by the quality of life that is further ascertained by means of systematic surveying of
the total impacted population. This method is termed as QALY or “quality-adjusted life-
years.” A 15 years gain in life expectancy arising out of an intervention which is
accompanied by only sufferings and pain that such expanded time is said to have a lower
quality-adjusted life-years in comparison to a relatively lesser gain in life expectancy arising
out of an intervention which is not accompanied by pain and misery (Kalpan et. al, 2015).
There is a lot of debate going on regarding the effectiveness of QALY but it is undeniable to
say that the results obtained from QALY are much reliable and relatable as compared to the
ones derived from other methods (Staniszewska et. al, 2010). In the case of Anxiety free, this
method is selected so that quality of life is ascertained and it gets involved in the
measurement of advantages. Further, the gain in the lifespan after the intervention helps in
proper computation. If the quality-adjusted life year is attained by the intervention then it is a
benefit and will help the process. Hence, the cost-utility outcome is selected because of the
multiple outcomes and life years are adjusted for quality of life.
Answer 5
The resources that will be collected under the category C1, C2, C3 and C4 are health sector,
other sector, patient or the family and losses in productivity. C1 pertains to healthcare where
the economies that is made up of companies that specialize in products, as well as services
are dealt with. When such costs are spotted it leads to listing of the ingredients. C2 comprises
3