QUESTION 1
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a seemingly straightforward analytical tool that is used to assess complex public policy decisions, however CEA does not always account for all intangible benefits. Cost-effectiveness is used to help pinpoint neglected opportunities for improving health and then allotting scarce resources to obtain better health outcomes for society. Since Britain’s has limited resources to concentrate on public health issues that have varying outcomes with regards to survival and quality of life. Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), part of the cost-effectiveness family is an appropriate technique to utilize when making such decisions because it allows different health outcomes to be transformed to a common unit, known as QALYs (quality-adjusted life year). Yet, societal benefits and costs are often not considered for CUA. Additionally, measuring QALYs is harder than measuring the monetary value of life through improvements in health, as is done with cost–benefit analysis. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), also a part of the cost-effectiveness family is used to recognize value in terms of economic efficiency, in that it improves allocation of scarce resources. In addition, some individuals believe that life is invaluable and there are moral problems with assigning a value on human life.
The main limitation for CEA, is the weighting of QALYs through trade-offs and specific health outcomes may also make it hard to quantify, thus making it harder to measure all factors that may influence QALY for an individual. Also, QALY’s lack of usefulness to physicians in determining the proper route of treatment for their patients represents another limitation. Additionally, older individuals are presumed to have a lower QALY...
... middle of paper ...
...e surface appears to be a good idea however some individuals may argue that this would interfere with individual liberties. The best approach to find out if providing incentives works or if excise taxes works to decrease obesity is to use the cost-effectiveness analysis tool. Researchers will be able to pinpoint which policies are working and which ones are failing because cost-effectiveness is associated with cost-benefit analysis. This means if the benefits outweigh the costs, then policymakers should implement the policy with the most benefit. I believe the optimum approach to addressing the obesity epidemic is to have government incentivize individuals for maintaining a healthy Body Mass Index and to expand evidence-base school interventions. More effort should be focused on education because behaviors are learned not only in the home but also in the classroom.
Cella, D.F. (1995). Measuring quality of life in palliative care. Semin Oncol 22(2 Suppl 3), 73-81.
Health coverage provides security for both individuals as well as families in situations when medical need arises. This is a fact well known by Australians. Vast of the population, however, are unknowledgeable on how to find the best values when evaluating health policies.
Review, T. R. (2017, September 01). A Debate Over the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Retrieved October 25, 2017, from
“This Article constructively critiques the two arguments that public health advocates have made in support of anti-obesity soda taxes or junk food taxes. Part II discusses and critiques the first argument, an economic externalities argument that government should tax soda or junk food to internalize the disproportionately high health care costs of obesity. Part III discusses and critiques the second argument made by public health advocates, that government should adopt anti-obesity measures to improve population-wide health. Consider possible unintended consequences of anti-obesity proposals. Obesity policy debates present a conflict of fundamental values, such as health, fairness, efficiency, and autonomy. Part TV attempts to reconcile these values and responds to the "personal responsibility" objection to soda taxes and food taxes. Part V considers various factors that would affect behavioral responses to proposed soda taxes and food taxes and addresses concerns that such taxes would be regressive and thus unfair to low-income consumers. Part VI suggests the way forward for public health advocates, including a proposal to enact a tax on nutritionally poor foods and drinks, paired with a salient benefit. This Part also recommends enactment of a federal system of food classification, based on nutrient-profiling methods, along with a federal system of front-of-package nutritional labeling.” (Pratt)
Everyday Americans die from the diseases they carry from obesity. Many Americans over eat because their social problems or because they are hereditary. Many plans have been discussed but finding the solution is the problem. Junk foods and unhealthy beverages have corrupted children’s minds all over the nation and putting a stop on it could lead to other benefits. Unhealthy foods and drinks should be taxed and healthy foods should be advertised more to help prevent American obesity.
By adding a tax, people will stop buying unhealthy foods daily. Being able to decrease the number of unhealthy food people eat, will better our overall health, and will decline our obesity rates. A study done "as of 2003, US states without sales taxes on soft drinks or snack foods were 4 times as likely as states with a tax to have a relative increase in the prevalence of obesity" (Franck, Grandi, & Eisenberg, 2003). This is a good example of how taxing junk food will help the populations problem with obesity. With easier access to junk food, people are more likely to buy it because it is a cheap substitute for the pricey healthy
National health systems are assessed by the extent to which expenditure and actions in public health and medical care contributes to the crucial social goals of improving health, increasing access to quality healthcare, reducing health disparities, protecting citizens from penury due to medical e...
Policies implemented by the government have the potential to greatly impact the issues faced by Americans because of their food. One of the most serious epidemics to face Americans is obesity; a direct result of a lack of access to healthy, whole produce. The government has several options in solving this problem including food taxes, public education programs, and mandatory physical education in schools. A food tax on items high in process ingredients and low in nutrients should have a higher tax than whole foods. Much like the Cigarette Tax, a Processed Food Tax will persuade consumers to shy away from these nutrient-void foods and incorporate more healthy foods into their diet. Another solution to combating obesity is a series of public educational programs. By educating the public and even kids in school on the difference between processed and whole foods, individuals will be better able to distinguish between beneficial and non-beneficial foods. And finally, the most attention grabbing policy the United States government should be enacting is mandatory physical education. Including, but not limited to Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign, the government should require mandatory physical education classes in schools because they found increased PE time raised the amount of time students were exercising or "engaged in strength-building activities" but lowered the amount of time spent in
Radley Balko, The author of the essay “What You Eat is Your Business”, would agree that in order to stop obesity, we must turn this public problem around and make it everyone’s individual responsibility. Instead of inflicting the importance of personal ownership, government officials, politicians and congress make obesity a public problem by prohibiting junk food in school vending machines, federal funding for new bike trails and sidewalks, and restrictive food marketing to children. Overall I agree that this manipulation of food options is not the proper way to fight obesity, however, I think that government should inform people about the food they are eating because then they have no excuses for not taking responsibility of the actions.
As a market failure, the obesity epidemic in America is costing the federal government billions of dollars annually. While most obesity prevention programs aim toward changing the rate of children who become obese, many fail, causing an inefficient allocation of government resources. Much of what 's already been done has proven to barely be a speed bump in the progression that is the obesity epidemic. Several solutions which can be explored to effective halt this progression. The taxation of certain unhealthy foods, government benefits and subsidies for organic produce farmers, and passing new legislation to regulate the amount of calories a fast food restaurant is allowed to serve you, just to name a few. These solutions, however, are only effective if they affect the lives of the majority of the population, therefore preventing obesity, whilst correctly allocating valuable government resources efficiently. ...
...rnment as well because President Barrack Obama would have to approve of this or the congress would have to override him. If Barrack Obama did the research he would realize that According to an infographic by MPH@GW, “The Cost of Obesity,” lowering the national obesity rate by just five percent could eliminate 13 percent of the federal deficit over the next 20 years. Re-framing the obesity epidemic in economic terms could be a way to persuade Americans to tackle obesity through public health legislation (Fudin). Obesity needs to be regulated in the next few years and the only way that this could be done is through raising fast food prices and lowering healthy food prices. If they don’t control this issue then the entire world with become unhealthy and not live as long as we are today because many of them will have health issues by time they are in their thirties.
We need to make it easy for parents to have access to healthier foods and healthier lifestyle choices for their kids. A lot of parents don’t know what they are doing to their kids and how the foods and lack of exercise is really killing their children. They need this information they need support from the hospitals. It needs to be a community effort. Knowledge is power and this information is something parents need to have and know. They need to know the alternatives to junk food, they need to know that their kids should not watch television and play games all day without doing any physical activities. Some of the strategies I like that were used by the Tobacco industry and I think can be effective with childhood obesity is marketing. Marketing through videos, print ads, and radio ads. These are great for getting your word and message out to a larger audience. This is great to help educate the masses and provide them information on how to help with childhood obesity. You see a lot of information about smoking and the dangers of smoking which is great and it’s something that make people think twice. I think community interventions like the ones used with helping adolescents reduce tobacco use will be great for obesity as well. This was done by the education programs regarding tobacco and the anti-tobacco campaigns and laws passed to help with
States in the recent years. The purpose of today’s health care is to manage costs while
Most clinical studies express gains in health in terms of disease-specific measures, such as number of heart attacks avoided or cases of influenza prevented. Although this is useful for particular treatments related to those health conditions, those measures do not allow for comparison across diseases. To solve this, the concept of quality-adjusted life years
A quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) is one of the most widely used measures for measuring the quality of life and is used for the assessment of health outcomes. Health is a function of length of life and quality of life (Prieto and Sacristán, 2003) and this measure serves as composite indicator which allows quantity and quality of life in a single ind...