CEA, CUA, and CBA
The cost-effective analysis (CEA) is used for the purpose of calculating the monetary value underpinned by the overall cost of a project. The CEA approach is significantly easy for application and measurement of benefits can be carried out regarding the one-dimensional outcome. However, other important outcomes with adequate potential may be neglected without measuring monetary values (NIH, 2014). Health care research undertakes the use of this approach for the analysis of cost associated with health care interventions entrenched with the factors of lives saved, prevention of illnesses or life years gained.
On the other hand, the cost-unit analysis (CUA) is used for the measurement of a quality-adjusted life year. This analysis is entrenched with its strengths and limitations and it is responsible for measuring relatively more health and well-being aspects as compared to a single natural unit (NIH, 2014). However, CUA is considerably complex than CEA. Conversely, cost-benefits analysis (CBA) is a systemic method that works by evaluating economic worth possessed by a project or investment. The method is underpinned with the quantification of monetary values including project cost alongside comparing the values with the benefits (NIH, 2014). The benefits value exceeds the costs; the project is then considered for commencement.
Arends, Bültmann, van Rhenen, Groen, & van der Klink (2013) has evaluated the CEA and CBA of a problem-solving interventions that in turn is put forward for the prevention of recurrent sickness absence occurring in workers who are presented with the condition of common mental disorders (CMDs). In this regard, a 2-day training program was managed as a problem-solving intervention and CEA were conducting by placing against societal perspective, and CBA was conducted by aligning it with the employer’s perspective. The obtained results of the research suggested that there is a need for additional investments. In the light of CEA, the training program was effective, but significant expenses were required. Additionally, the CBA provided with the insight of the costs of the employer’s occupational health that were significantly higher. The overall evaluation revealed no economic benefits. For the human services program, the use of CBA will be of great significance as it will assist in the determination of options through which benefits of the project alongside the factors such as costs, decisions, and investment. .
Arends, I., Bültmann, U., van Rhenen, W., Groen, H., & van der Klink, J. J. (2013). Economic evaluation of a problem solving intervention to prevent recurrent sickness absence in workers with common mental disorders. PloS one, 8(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071937
NIH. (2014, August 18). National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR). Retrieved from U.S. National Library of Medicine: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/edu/healthecon/04_he_06.html