Based on the current trends of treatment and the research conducted in this area, I advocate for point C. Although the most efficient point is B, as it would mean that while more resources are pumped into research and treatment of patients, the quality of life and survival rates will also be high, these standards have not been achieved. Based on the article, the cost-effectiveness techniques may prove to be potent if healthcare facilities would focus more on the approaches used to deliver healthcare services as opposed to over-focusing on research. In healthcare, more research does not equate to improved quality of life if the evidence from the research studies is not utilized well (Chandra, Jena, Skinner, 2011). Improving the quality of services currently offered to patients could and utilizing the evidence from studies that have already been conducted instead of redirecting even more resources to research would ensure that patients benefit from what is currently available.
For instance, in the case of cancer patients, their survival rates rely on both research and utilization of available treatments to prolong their lives. At point C, already existing treatment approaches would be put in place and used effectively while at the same time promoting advances in research (Chandra, Jena, Skinner, 2011). The costs directed towards research would be lesser than those used in managing patients. After mastering appropriate use of the resources that healthcare facilities already have, the country can proceed in investing more finances in research.
Response to Post 1: Matthew Gustafson
I agree with your reasons for choosing point C because while it would be ambitious to aim for point B, I think the same quality of life and survival rates can be achieved at point C if practitioners and scientists focused on maximizing the use of the resources currently available to them. As such, the country should try to achieve higher survival rates at point C.
Response to Post 2: Elizabeth Fruchey
Although patients should indeed receive care at a low rate without being asked to pay additional costs, achieving point B requires more finances among other resources. The quality of services offered at point C should be improved gradually to promote survival rates while offering healthcare services at a low cost.
Chandra, A., Jena, A. B., & Skinner, J. S. (2011). The pragmatist’s guide to comparative effectiveness research. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 16990. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w16990.pdf.