Abstract
The paper revealed a high level of prostate cancer among the black population in Maryland. In turn, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening was considered as being ineffective for this race group with the help of cost-effectiveness analysis. Nonetheless, this instrument can measure the efficiency of overall public health benefit by combining the analyses of each segment, but the reasoning behind the allocation of the resources might be biased due to the underused interventions by the particular systems. Lastly, a novel treatment has to be introduced to this population group.
Individual Community and Selected Intervention
The black population of the state of Maryland was chosen as an individual community for the assessment, as the mortality from prostate cancer among African Americans than among whites (Oliver & Stukenborg, 2009). The statistics portray that prostate cancer among blacks is high, and it causes mortality frequently (Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2015). Despite the progress in screening and medication, prostate cancer is dangerous due to the increased risk factors among blacks.
The prevention practices have to be considered as a priority. In this case, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is the matter, which will be assessed by the cost-effectiveness analysis. PSA is actively used in the modern world since it reveals the development of cancer at the initial stage, but it is highly criticized for its insufficiency (Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2015).
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Intervention and Description
The cost-effectiveness analysis implies that the evaluation whether the costs have a tendency to deliver the desired outcomes while determining the efficiency of the actions and interventions (Getzen, 2013). In the context of the black community in Maryland, the cost-effectiveness analysis portrays the ability of the chosen intervention (PSA) to minimize the consequences of prostate cancer. In turn, the criticism of this treatment tends to represent its capability to solve the current problem.
As for the description of the analysis, the investments in medical care tend to be at the high level due to the necessity to eliminate disparities and provide healthcare to the people in need (Fuchs, 2009). Nonetheless, despite a substantial investment, the black male community in Maryland shows insignificant positive change while still having high mortality rates (Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2015). In this case, the cost-effectiveness of this screening is questionable, as it has no substantial reflection on the outcomes.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Evaluation of the Overall Health Benefit
Despite having local nature in the context of the presented assignment, the cost-effectiveness analysis can contribute to the assessment of the total health benefit. It could be said that the measurement of the different aspects of the public health including various health indicators assists in the formation of the overall image about the current situation in the world (Weinstein & Skinner, 2010). In turn, the depiction of the health expenditure and comparison to the qualitative outcomes can determine the well-being of the nation while describing the ability of the public health to deliver benefits.
Cost-Effectiveness of Resource Allocation for One Health Program versus Another
It is questionable whether the allocation of the resources will contribute to the ability to reach higher outcomes. Nonetheless, the reasoning for the redistribution of the resources might be biased, as some systems underutilize particular services in the certain spheres (Weinstein & Skinner, 2010). In this instance, the careful assessment is required to evaluate the efficiency of the interventions.
The presented case portrays the investment and development of a novel approach to eliminate the current levels of prostate cancer among blacks. In this case, PSA cannot be diminished, as it has a positive influence on the other groups of patients (Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2015). A core solution is the introduction of a new treatment to be able to deliver desired outcomes.
References
Fuchs, V. A. (2009). Cost shifting does not reduce the cost of health care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(9), 999-1000.
Getzen, T. (2013). Health economics and financing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. (2015). 2014 Cancer Report. Web.
Oliver, M., & Stukenborg, G. (2009). Race and the likelihood of localized prostate cancer at diagnosis among men in 4 southeastern states. Journal of the National Medical Association, 101(8), 750-757.
Weinstein, M., & Skinner, J. (2010). Comparative effectiveness and health care spending—Implications for reform. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(5), 460–465.