320-PR

In your response posts, be sure to use both cost (factor inputs) and survival (quality life years) to support or refute your peers’ initial posts.

PEER-AK

After reading the article, “The Pragmatist's Guide to Comparative Effectiveness Research”, I do not believe that more equals better. I would advocate for point C, because it exceeds the value of improved health and the cost and QALY are both used in the solution, which in turn, would make cost decline while making the overall health outcomes rise. Point C gives us balance between efficiency and cost-effectiveness which in healthcare is important to have. I believe the U.S can become a healthy nation, while also becoming cost-effective with the help of comparative effectiveness research. I think that this research can help change things within our healthcare system if we use this information to change every aspect of the system. 

The main difference between the points on the curve is that each point represents different relationships between the factor inputs and the survival/quality of life. Point A represent the U.S. healthcare system, and the short falls in production either because of wasteful costs or because of health outcome shortfalls. Point B is the peak of production function meaning that all possible health-related gains are exhausted. Point C is where the frontier is equal to the inverse of the cost-effectiveness rate. Point D is where one begins the production possibility frontier. Point E is where only those appropriate for care get it, and Point F, treatment is extended across all patients, so the outcomes are worse and the cost are higher. 

Reference Chandra, A., Jena, A., & Skinner, J. (2011, April). THE PRAGMATIST’S GUIDE TO COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH. https://www.nber.org/papers/w16990.pdf.

PEER-KB

In the article, "The Pragmatist's Guide to Comparative Effectiveness Research", the authors discuss various cost and effectiveness scenarios.  By looking at Figure 1, I would have to agree with economists and say that point C is the point I would advocate for.  At first glance, I thought I would definitely say point B, since the quality of life score was higher.  However, from an economics standpoint, the additional costs to not support the minimal increase in effectiveness.  Point B is considered to be the peak of production, but it would be even more costly than we currently spend, as it is the point where "we've tried everything".  From a cost effective approach, point C takes all treatments in to consideration, but scales back on options that will cost more than the benefit gained.

Looking at point A, this is representative of the U.S. healthcare system.  One can easily see how this point falls short on the quality of life/survival ranking.  

  So while keeping emotion out of the mix, and going strictly from an economist viewpoint, I would place myself on point C.  It identifies the point of efficiency meeting productivity.

Source:

Chandra, A., Jena, A., & Skinner, J. (2011, April). THE PRAGMATIST’S GUIDE TO COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH. https://www.nber.org/papers/w16990.pdf.