Health Economic summer 2010 - Essay Example

Gordon et al. (2010) have researched the impact of such tests on smoking cessation programmes and chain smokers considering the costs involved. Their research focus has been to evaluate the impact of genetic test needs of routine smoking cessation programmes on chain smokers to measure the cost effectiveness of such initiatives. No quality methods can measure the impact of such health interventions except the cost valuation approaches used within cost-benefit analysis. Through the use of common currency result measures, researchers have estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to measure the validity of running such tests.

Already much work has been accomplished regarding cost per QALY estimates by clinicians and through smoking cessation services. General impression on carrying genetic tests has been positive for treatment interventions but QALY assessment is not enough to evaluate the complex effect due to psychosocial nature of the treatment for public and individual health impact. There have been limitations in deriving results as one-size does not fit to all (Kelly et al. 2005). The cost-utility analysis (CUA)evaluations can measure health impacts by making comparisons in all fields of health that help in distribution of resources but are unable to map the non-health outcomes and opportunity cost of such programmes (Kelly et al. 2005). The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) appraises all costs and benefits through currency terms.

In case the benefits are more than costs, it is suggested to spend more money on such programmes and in case the reverse is happening, further investment can be put on hold. The CBA approach is appealing and genuine but it is a complex mechanism to perform appraisal because monetary terms are involved for evaluating health and economic viability of conducting genetic tests. Economists’ evaluations not recommended previously can be attempted as has been done to measure the changed impact of taxation on drinking alcohol and smoking of cigarettes to further the research on it (Kelly et al. 2005). Gordon et al. (2010) have used two strategic models for a hypothetical cohort of chain smokers above 50 years of age.

By selecting people who have both undergone and not taken the genetic test in a smoking cessation intervention, they have included nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and counseling. Data has been captured to be based on Markov model considering randomized examination and meta-evaluation of 12-month quit rates and long-term relapse rate for measuring risk of lung cancer to participants in the intervention. The model covered five health states. As per the two strategies, the smoking cessation programmes were run with and without genetic tests producing results that the people may not, probably enter into relapse and start smoking again as evaluated from the outcomes of 12 months (Gordon et al. 2010). A cohort of 50 years old men and women consuming 20 cigarettes a day entered the smoking cessation programme.

Generally, such an initiative considers general practitioners’ advice, telephone counseling and NRT treatment given during 12 weeks. There have been in practice some pharmacological treatments with better smoking cessation rates but NRT is widely accepted as a means of quitting smoking. For genetic testing blood samples are collected to for