Question

The public health director of a large city has a discretionary budget of $500,000 and wants to spend it to save as many lives as possible. Two of the approaches being considered seem most promising: high-blood pressure screening of the population and mobile cardiac arrest units. Medical studies indicate the following results for the two alternatives.  

High-blood pressure screening				Mobile cardiac units
Age cohort	Cost	Total Lives Saved		Units	Cost	Total Lives Saved
Over 65	$100,000	30		1	$100,000	100
55-64	200,000	50		2	200,000	150
45-54	300,000	65		3	300,000	175
35-44	400,000	75		4	400,000	190
25-34	500,000	80		5	500,000	200

The public health director hires you to solve a dispute among members of her staff. A vocal segment of the staff argues that the entire budget is spent on mobile cardiac units (saving a total of 200 lives) rather than on high-blood pressure screening (saving only 80 lives). What do you recommend? (Explain which economic principle you used, and how you came to your decision.)

Answer 1

I would surely recommend mobile cardiac units as the table itself reveals the result of patients life saved are more in cardiac units than in screening.

In case of high blood pressure screening medical team will have to visit households to identify the disease whereas mobile units can be posted at every location frequently. Here the principle of costing in which more count of life saved is achieved.

Mobile units will be able to take follow up of defaulters which may not be possible in screening during OPD/camps.

Also with less number of staff target can be achieved.punlic health services would be accessible to everyone and also to those who does not give priority to health.

Resources and budget allocation to be targeted more to the mobile units to achieve best possible health outcome.

All these factors promote mobile cardiac unit over screening