| Course | DPH 840 Strategic Planning and Financial Management in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Economic evaluation paper |
| Length | About 1,083 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DPH 840 Module 6
Worth the Cost? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Community Health Worker Hypertension Program
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 840: Strategic Planning and Financial Management in Public Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Worth the Cost? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Community Health Worker Hypertension Program
Every public health dollar spent on one program is a dollar not spent on another. Health economics provides tools to compare what programs cost with what they achieve, so that decision makers can choose efficiently and fairly. This paper applies cost-effectiveness analysis to a composite county's decision on whether to fund a three-year community health worker program for 2,000 east-side residents with uncontrolled hypertension.
Opportunity Cost and Efficiency
The central economic idea is opportunity cost: the value of the best alternative forgone. Efficiency means getting the most health from limited resources. Economic evaluation does not decide for policymakers, but it makes trade-offs explicit, so that choices reflect evidence about value rather than habit or advocacy alone.
Types of Economic Evaluation
Cost-minimization compares costs when outcomes are equal. Cost-effectiveness analysis sets costs against outcomes measured in their own units, such as mmHg of blood pressure lowered or cases prevented. Cost-utility analysis, a form of cost-effectiveness analysis, uses quality-adjusted life years, a measure weighting each year lived by its health-related quality. Cost-benefit analysis values outcomes in dollars. This paper uses cost-utility analysis because it allows comparison with other health investments.
Methods
Sanders et al. (2016), reporting for the second US expert panel on cost-effectiveness, advise presenting results from both the health care sector and societal perspectives, discounting future costs and outcomes and listing all impacts in an inventory. This analysis uses the health care sector perspective, a ten-year horizon and a 3% discount rate.
Costs and Effects
The table summarizes costs and effects per participant and for the program.
| Item | Per participant | Program total (2,000) |
|---|---|---|
| Program cost (staff, training, supervision, devices) | $900 | $1.8 million |
| Averted medical costs over ten years (discounted) | $300 | $0.6 million |
| Net cost | $600 | $1.2 million |
| Quality-adjusted life years gained (discounted) | 0.02 | 40 |
| Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio | $30,000 per QALY | $30,000 per QALY |
Where the Numbers Come From
Program costs come from the department's budget estimate for eight community health workers, a supervisor, training and blood pressure monitors. Effects assume an average reduction in systolic pressure consistent with published community health worker studies, translated into fewer strokes and heart attacks using risk equations, and then into quality-adjusted life years. Averted costs reflect fewer hospitalizations. All figures are illustrative for teaching.
Interpreting the Ratio
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of about $30,000 per quality-adjusted life year means the county would pay $30,000 for each year of healthy life gained compared with usual care. Whether this is good value depends on a threshold for willingness to pay.
Thresholds
The familiar US benchmark of $50,000 for each quality-adjusted life year has little basis and has not been updated for inflation; analysts have suggested that $100,000 to $150,000 is more consistent with current values (Neumann et al., 2014). By any of these thresholds, the program appears cost-effective.
Sensitivity Analysis
Estimates are uncertain. If the program's effect on blood pressure were half as large, with averted costs halved as well, the ratio would rise to about $75,000 per quality-adjusted life year. If program costs were 50% higher, the ratio would be about $52,500. If averted costs were twice as high, the program would cost $15,000 per quality-adjusted life year. In all scenarios tested, the program remains below $100,000.
Return on Investment Evidence
Broader evidence supports investment in public health. A systematic review of return on investment studies found a median return of about 14 to 1 across public health interventions, with local interventions returning about 4 to 1 and national interventions much more (Masters et al., 2017). The hypertension program is not expected to save money overall, but it buys health at reasonable cost.
Equity Considerations
Standard analysis treats a quality-adjusted life year the same regardless of who gains it. The program targets neighborhoods with a nine-year life expectancy gap, so its benefits fall on people with the greatest need. Distributional cost-effectiveness methods can weight gains to disadvantaged groups more heavily; even without weighting, the equity argument strengthens the case.
Budget Impact
Cost-effectiveness does not guarantee affordability. The program's gross cost of $600,000 a year must fit within the department's budget. Financing options include hospital community benefit funds, Medicaid payment for community health worker services in states that allow it and redirection of general funds as proposed in the budget analysis.
Limitations
The analysis relies on assumptions about effect size, persistence of benefits and averted costs. It uses the health care sector perspective, omitting productivity gains and participant time costs that a societal perspective would include. Real-world effects may differ from those in studies. A pilot with careful measurement would reduce uncertainty.
Recommendation
The county should fund the program, beginning with a one-year pilot of 700 participants with rigorous tracking of blood pressure control, costs and participant experience. If results are consistent with the analysis, the program should scale to 2,000 participants. The analysis and pilot results should be presented to commissioners together.
Perspective Matters
From a health care sector perspective, the program costs $600 per participant after averted medical costs. From a societal perspective, productivity gains from fewer strokes and heart attacks and the time participants spend in the program would also count. Including productivity would likely make the program look more favorable, which is why the expert panel recommends reporting both perspectives.
Presenting Results to Decision Makers
Commissioners are not economists. The presentation will translate results into plain terms: for about the cost of one year of a county road maintenance crew, the program would prevent an estimated number of strokes and heart attacks and add 40 years of healthy life across participants. A single chart showing results across sensitivity scenarios will convey uncertainty.
Beyond Cost-Effectiveness
Economic evaluation informs but does not settle decisions. Commissioners will also weigh equity, public support, feasibility and fit with the strategic plan. The program scores well on each: it targets the neighborhoods with the greatest burden, residents requested it and the department has the staff structure to run it.
Using Economics Elsewhere
The same methods can compare other options in the plan, such as overdose prevention strategies or heat outreach. Building basic economic evaluation capacity in the department will help leaders compare programs consistently.
Conclusion
Cost-utility analysis suggests that a community health worker hypertension program for east-side residents would cost about $30,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, well within common thresholds, and would remain cost-effective across plausible scenarios. Combined with its equity benefits and a manageable budget impact, the analysis supports funding the program through a measured pilot.
References
Masters, R., Anwar, E., Collins, B., Cookson, R., & Capewell, S. (2017). Return on investment of public health interventions: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 71(8), 827-834. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-208141
Neumann, P. J., Cohen, J. T., & Weinstein, M. C. (2014). Updating cost-effectiveness: The curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. New England Journal of Medicine, 371(9), 796-797. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1405158
Sanders, G. D., Neumann, P. J., Basu, A., Brock, D. W., Feeny, D., Krahn, M., Kuntz, K. M., Meltzer, D. O., Owens, D. K., Prosser, L. A., Salomon, J. A., Sculpher, M. J., Trikalinos, T. A., Russell, L. B., Siegel, J. E., & Ganiats, T. G. (2016). Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA, 316(10), 1093-1103. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12195
DPH 840 Module 6 instructions, in plain terms
Aspen's catalog lists the application of economic theories to health within DPH 840, and with the module's instructions kept for enrolled students, this example runs an economic evaluation. Economic evaluation exercises typically ask you to define the decision, choose a method, estimate costs and effects, calculate a ratio, test assumptions and make a recommendation. State the perspective and time horizon. Show where every number comes from. Present costs and effects in a table. Compare the ratio with a stated threshold. Run at least three sensitivity scenarios. Discuss equity and affordability separately from cost-effectiveness. Explain why you chose cost-utility rather than cost-benefit analysis.
How this DPH 840 Module 6 example is built
Roughly a thousand words across seventeen headings take the reader from opportunity cost and types of evaluation to methods and a three-column table of costs and effects. Sources of the numbers, interpreting the ratio, thresholds and sensitivity analysis follow. Return on investment evidence, equity, budget impact, limitations and a recommendation come next. Perspective, presenting results to decision makers, going beyond cost-effectiveness and using economics elsewhere round out the paper. The margin note makes the point that starting with opportunity cost frames the analysis as a real choice. The conclusion states the result and recommendation. The costs table reports both per-participant and program totals, making the arithmetic easy to follow and check. Sensitivity results are recalculated in the text.
Where the marks sit in the DPH 840 Module 6 rubric
Economic evaluation papers are judged on correct methods, transparent assumptions, accurate calculation, sensible interpretation and honest limits. The reference list, in APA style, pairs expert panel guidance on cost-effectiveness methods with a commentary on willingness-to-pay thresholds and a review of public health returns. Anyone can verify the table's figures. Sensitivity scenarios recalculate correctly. The distinction between cost-effectiveness and affordability shows understanding. A pilot recommendation reflects appropriate caution, which instructors credit. Equity is addressed explicitly, noting that standard analysis weights all health gains equally and explaining why this program's targeting matters. Presenting results in plain terms for commissioners shows awareness of the audience that will make the decision.
DPH 840 Module 6 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often present a ratio without showing how it was calculated, or treat illustrative numbers as real. Others confuse cost-effectiveness with cost savings. Show the formula. Label assumptions clearly. Recalculate every sensitivity scenario. Separate the value question from the budget question. If QALYs or discounting are new to you, our tutoring team can walk through a worked example. End with a recommendation that states what should happen next and what evidence would change it. Build a small spreadsheet so you can change one assumption at a time and watch the ratio move. That exercise will make your sensitivity section clearer and your conclusions more defensible to a skeptical reader. Remember that a program can be cost-effective without saving money.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DPH 840 and Doctor of Public Health sample papers
- DPH 840 Module 1: Strategic Planning in Public and Private Health Organizations
- DPH 840 Module 2: Environmental Scan and Strategic Analysis
- DPH 840 Module 3: A Strategic Plan With Goals and Measures
- DPH 840 Module 4: Monitoring and Revising Strategy
- DPH 840 Module 5: Public Budgets and Population Health
- DPH 840 Module 7: Strategy for a Vulnerable Population
- DPH 840 Module 8: Immersion and DPH Project Progress
- DPH 890 Module 8: Comprehensive Exam Preparation
- DPH 850 Module 6: Evaluating an Information System
- DPH 860 Module 2: Inference for Means and Proportions
- DPH 830 Module 8: Human Rights and Ethics in Global Health
DPH 840 Module 6 questions, answered
What does DPH 840 Module 6 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 840 covers applying economic theories to health, so a cost-effectiveness or economic evaluation exercise is typical. Confirm with your classroom prompt.
What is an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio?
The additional cost of an intervention divided by its additional health effect compared with an alternative, often expressed per quality-adjusted life year.
What threshold is used for cost-effectiveness in the United States?
There is no official threshold; $50,000 per QALY has been common, but $100,000 to $150,000 has been suggested as more current.
Where can I find a free DPH 840 Module 6 sample paper?
Scroll up for the cost-effectiveness analysis and its table of costs, averted costs, QALYs and the incremental ratio.
How is health economics applied in DPH 840 Module 6?
By comparing a program's costs with its health effects, often as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year, and judging value against a threshold with sensitivity analysis.