In two different paragraph gave your personal opinion to Joel Sunda 

and   Christopher Moran 

Joel Sunda 

In to trying create incentives that provide the best outcomes for the provider, supplier and the patient, one would do an economic evaluation. According to Dewar 2009, the ideal baseline is that when the Marginal Benefit (MB) of consumption equals the Marginal Cost (MC) of consumption. As long as the benefit is more than the cost consumers will continue to purchase goods and services. Although, when the benefit and cost become equal the consumer will no longer continue to purchase. An analysis of supply and demand should be done as well, if the supply and demand is known incentives could be created that would be in the Marginal Benefit and Marginal Cost for all parties involved, this would then lead to equilibrium.

Reference

Dewar, D. M. (2009). The Essentials of Health Economics. Mississauga, Canada: Jones and Bartlett.

 Christopher Moran 

 The cost of healthcare is rising at substantially and unrealistic rates. This is causing patients not to follow through with long-term medical plans and leads to an unsustainable health plan for them. The copayments alone for pharmaceuticals is 22% (Yong , Olsen, & McGinnis, 2010) in this week’s reading of Approaches to Improving Value—Provider and Manufacturer Payments, they mention there is evidence that the increased patient cost sharing leads to patients not utilizing their medication. Physicians are limited on their reimbursement if the procedure is going to cost to much, they come to an ethical dilemma on whether to proceed or look for cheaper option that may lead to a negative outcome for patients.

 A solution that was brought to light in this week reading can be found written by Steven D. Pearson, M.D., he mentions that a collaboration between states on studies over reimbursement and coverage in values can lead to lower costs overall. These studies can show clinics on how to make the cost affective choices that lead to the best outcome for patients (Yong , Olsen, & McGinnis, 2010).

 I believe the solution may be much simpler and more effective for everyone. Putting a cap on the amount that pharmaceutical companies can charge, for life saving medicine and reducing the overall cost of copays for patients. In return insurance companies should cover the difference to ensure that the plan that the patient paid into is being used to its fullest capabilities. In my opinion they should be covering the full cost of deductibles that are used on life saving or life sustaining medications.  This will have more patients going to the doctor when they become unwell, pharmaceuticals not going to waste from people not purchasing them and patients are not in a mountain of debt after a minor incident. 

Do you feel that a data analysis on cost spending will inevitably fix the issues of overspending on healthcare?

-Moran, C

References

Yong, P. L., Olsen, L. A., & McGinnis, J. M. (2010). 5 Approaches to Improving Value—Provider and Manufacturer Payments. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from https://kapextmediassl-a.akamaihd.net/healthSci/HA415/HA415_1802A/HA%20415-Week_Two_Discussion_Question_Article.pdf