Analysis of Contingency Plans for Shadyville

Contingency Plans to Reduce Cryptosporidium Rate

Shadyville, Sunnydale's neighboring town, has reported an incident rate of 10 new cases in every 100,000 residents for cryptosporidiosis. As a result, the residents have two contingency plans that could assist in probably reducing the rate of cryptosporidium. The first contingency plan involves the removal of pathogenic microorganisms in the area's water system, which will decrease the influenza rate to four new incidents every year. In contrast, the second plan focuses on completely protecting the population against influenza though the mandated, innovative antidote would make participants become extremely lethargic and unable to function for 7 days.

The implementation of a suitable contingency plan to lessen cryptosporidium rate requires extensive analysis of each option on the basis of health outcomes. This process would entail making considerable economic evaluations as well as cost-benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-utility analysis. For the residents of Shadyville, there are three different types of economic evaluations that can be utilized to rationalize the decision between implementing either plan i.e. cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-utility analysis. The use of these three different types of economic evaluations is because of the difference in the manner they approach benefits though they approach costs in a standard format (Palmer, Byford & Raftery, 1999, p.1349). The differences in the approach to benefits will be helpful for these residents since they play an important role in establishing criteria for efficiency.

The costs for Contingency Plan 1 include direct costs such as expenditures related to making changes in town's water system, costs of introduction of the new process, and labor costs for the international health team. The indirect costs include project management costs and costs of unprecedented events during implementation. The direct costs of Contingency Plan 2 are costs for purchasing the antidote, implementation costs, and marketing costs. The indirect costs include costs of medication for the adverse effects and costs of any other unprecedented issue relating to the antidote.

A cost-effectiveness analysis measures outcome in terms of natural units like improvements in functional status or life years saved. In this case, the analyst evaluates costs of two or more clinical treatment options to establish the relative value of one alternative over the other (Santerre & Neun, 2010, p.96). Therefore, outcomes are measured in a cost-effectiveness analysis by examining the value of at least two treatment options for a specific health care goal. In contrast, cost utility analysis measures outcomes in terms of the quantitative and qualitative components of health using a utility-based approach. In this case, if an intervention is productively efficient by generating higher benefits over another at lower costs, it is deemed suitable. Cost benefit analysis measures outcomes in monetary terms i.e. costs versus benefits. If the benefits outweigh costs, they intervention is considered suitable while if the costs outweigh benefits, the proposed solution is deemed inappropriate.

For the residents of Shadyville, a cost effectiveness analysis would be a suitable economic evaluation regarding the best alternative. Each of the contingency plans will be analyzed in natural units since the main goal of this plan is to lessen cryptosporidium rate and help save lives. The determination of a suitable alternative through this type of economic evaluation would entail calculating an incremental cost effectiveness ratio. The incremental value of Contingency Plan 1 is reduction of influenza rate at relatively lower direct and indirect costs. In contrast, Contingency Plan 2 achieves this goal though it is associated with high costs because of its adverse effects on participants. Therefore, Contingency Plan 1 is recommended as the best alternative since its benefits outweigh costs. Moreover, this alternative does not generate concerns related to emergence of adverse effects on the residents.