Risk and Mitigation Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis
Introduction
The new economic opportunity to be pursued by the health facility is; carrying out an immunization program targeting kids from families living in the inner-cities of the United States of America. Just like any other new venture, this economic opportunity requires an assessment to be carried out to determine its feasibility and the costs plus benefits involved. Thus, this calls for a well-structured analysis of the risks involved with initiating an immunization program within the inner-city setting. The likely risks to be encountered are; the resistance from the community due to existing beliefs about vaccinations and the resulting side effects to those who will accept the vaccines, there are also opportunities that this venture will present to the health facility e.g., tax exemptions by the IRS and expansion of the market share by the hospital in context. Hence, this calls for a proper analysis. The cost-benefit analysis regarding an immunization program directed towards helping inner-city kids will be based on derived data from previous research findings. This integrates both past qualitative and qualitative research findings.
Analyze the opportunities and risks relevant to an inner-city immunization program
The organization’s decision to implement an immunization program targeting the inner-city kids presents both opportunities and risks. The role of this proposal is to analyze the magnitude of the risks in order to pursue the benefits. On a mission to encourage charitable donations from the public, the federal state-initiated regulations that exempt individuals from tax burdens if they choose this path. This means that choosing to vaccinate inner-city kids will mean the hospital will be a beneficiary of the tax reliefs that come with an organization choosing to engage in non-profit activities geared towards the betterment of society. This comes as a result of the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, policy dating way back in the mid-20th century that clearly states that a hospital facility qualifies to be exempted from tax responsibilities by the state if they engage in non-profit activities that help the well being of societies e.g., public health programs(Rosenbaum et al., 2015). Another opportunity is that this program opens up opportunities for the hospital facility to receive donations from philanthropic individuals. Their decisions to make donations towards tax-exempt organizations helps limit the amount of tax obligation required of them by the IRS (Rosenbaum et al., 2015). Resultantly, received donations aid in running the immunization program without having to alter with the origination’s previous budget.
Nevertheless, besides all these stated benefits, there are risks that accompany them too. Throughout history, there have been instances of myths about vaccines, and those individuals from low-income areas aren’t an exception. Owing to the fact that there are already existing beliefs about immunization, there’s a risk of resistance and lack of cooperation from the target group. The most common myths associated with vaccines are but not limited to; individuals who hold the belief that vaccines administered to control flu aren’t a must, another existing common belief is that some vaccine types cause autism and related disorders (Boom, J. A., Cunningham, R. M., & McGee, L. U. 2018). On the contrary, research carried out in Denmark on a group of over 500,000 kids discredited previous research that held claims that autistic disorders were connected to Measles Mumps and Rubella vaccines, MMR and other vaccines. That cleared the sparked speculations linking autism cases with vaccines (World Health Organization 2015).
Propose ethical and culturally sensitive solutions to address the risks associated with the inner-city immunization program
The risk involved with pursuing the program of immunizing inner-city kids is that the community might resist the initiative citing some of the myths existing amongst themselves. Secondly, to those individuals with a history of allergies, they might be affected by instances of mild side effects resulting from some of the vaccinations. To address this risk in an ethical and culturally sensitive manner, it requires the health facility to deploy a risk management approach that puts into account societal ethics existing in the target community. The recommended ethical approach would be holding a discussion amongst the three concerned parties, which include the main decision-maker, the beneficiaries of the activity, and the subject who’s at risk of being directly affected by the risk in question. As per the ethical risk analysis thresholds, none of the three stakeholders should be exposed to any form of risk deceitfully (Hermansson 2006). Considering that there’s variation in people’s biology composition, and some of the vaccines are harbored in eggs, they might produce side effects to people allergic to proteins. It is, therefore, ethical to make aware of the concerned parties about such facts. This preserves the hospital’s interest in better service delivery to their patients, and also the individual patients’ concerns are addressed. Holding a discussion makes sure that the objectives of the hospital are considered, the main decision-maker is also respected, and the subject safety and wellbeing is also given a higher priority. Through efficient service delivery to the patients, there will be a great anchored relationship created between the community and the hospital. This will secure the health facility’s future by expanding its market share and also with a healthy community around; the hospital will have access to readily available labor.
Analyze the costs and benefits of the inner-city immunization program over a five-year time horizon
In the process of implementing the inner-city immunization program, the health facility has to incur some costs in order to realize the benefits. The organization will incur both costs in terms of monetary value and time. For instance, cash will be required in the purchasing of immunization kits. Other costs incurred will include the time spent in training the health officers in preparation for the vaccination process. To be able to achieve a successful immunization program, the whole process relies on the evaluation of the costs and the underlying benefits. The benefits are supposed to surpass the costs for the process to be economically viable to the organization. Unlike other entities, evaluating costs and benefits in the medical field takes a slightly different twist, the focus is on these two evaluation approaches. That is a cost-effective analysis and cost-utility analysis. Cost-effective analysis, CEA, permits the listing of two or more variables, and the variable at stake with the lowest unit cost and has a positive impact on the results is the one chosen. Whilst cost-utility analysis, CUA, focuses on the life-lengthening factor and the patients’ long-term health status. CUA deploys the cardinal utility approach, which makes it diverse in solving both medical and non-medical problems (Zweifel, P., Telser, H., 2009).
In the context of implementing an inner-city immunization program, the CEA will be effective in determining the best kits, for instance, at the best affordable market price. This is to mean, kits that are able to serve longer and are affordable. The decision is reached through evaluating the kit with the least possible cost but with the highest positive impact on the objectives at stake. On the other hand, the CUA will aid in assessing and decision making on variables in the immunization program that will aid in realizing a long-term health solution, one that’s life-lengthening to the inner-city kids. The goal of carrying out the vaccination process is to cut down the number of occurrences of vaccine-preventable diseases. Using this approach, the total costs of all the needed resources are calculated and then weighed against the benefits. The benefits also have monetary and non-monetary values. The monetary benefits are derived from the difference between the costs incurred and the benefits earned. Other benefits include tax exemptions, which save the hospital from the tax burden, which has monetary valuation. The noticeable knowledge gaps in the analysis of cost, especially in the medical field, are that most research carried out to carry out the cost evaluation process using the typical cost-benefit analysis instead of the CEA and the CUA approach.
Propose potential ways to keep costs under control while maximizing the benefits of the inner-city immunization program
In order to realize the inner-city immunization program benefits, the hospital has to work on minimizing costs while maximizing the benefits. This can be achieved through subscribing to donations from philanthropists. High net worth individuals are inclined towards making donations since the IRS has an incentive of offering tax reliefs to individuals donating to non-profit health facilities. Since these funds are tax-exempt, the hospital’s major expenses should be reliant on such resources as this will help in cutting down on expenses like taxes. However, the pros and cons of this cost-containment approach are that it will indeed be less costly in terms of tax burdens, but in the end, it’s a burden to the organization in a different form. To be a beneficiary of donations meant for non-profit hospitals, the state demands that as part of the compliance routine, the facility should regularly keep them posted of their endeavors, which is really costly in terms of time taken in drafting the needed compliance documents.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the effectiveness of the inner-city immunization program greatly depends on the approaches the health facility opts for in managing the risks in line with the program’s underlying costs and benefits.
References
1.Boom, J. A., Cunningham, R. M., & McGee, L. U. (2018). Vaccine Myths: Setting the Record. Journal of Family Strengths Straight, Critical Issues: Defining and Debunking Misconceptions in Health, Education, Criminal Justice, and Social Work/Social Services Volume 18 Issue 1
2.Hermansson, H. (2006). Ethical Aspects of Risk Management. Theses in Philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology 14. 87 + viii pp. Stockholm. ISBN 91-7178-346-6
3.Rosenbaum, S., Kindig, D. A., Bao, J., Byrnes, M. K., and O’Laughlin, C. (2015). The Value of The Non-profit Hospital Tax Exemption Was $24.6 Billion In 2011. The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc, Health Affairs 34, NO. 7 (2015): 1225–1233
4.World Health Organization (2015). Myths and Facts About Immunizations. World Health Organization Vaccine Safety Supporting Document. Regional Office for Europe 2015
5.Zweifel, P., Telser, H. (2009). Cost-benefit analysis for Health. In: Brent, R J. Handbook of Research on Cost-benefit Analysis. Cheltenham, 31-54.