Acquiring the funding to initially implement a public health intervention is one of the leading challenges for mental health prevention programs (US HHS & SAMHSA, 2007). One potential facilitator of this challenge is the reality that an inadequate amount of attention has been given to the economic evaluation of mental health prevention programs (Foster, Dodge, & Jones, 2003). In the absence of economic evaluations, it is oftentimes easier for policy makers to determine that the immediate costs of an intervention outweigh its distant benefits (US HHS & SAMHSA, 2007). This paper highlights the essentiality of economic evaluations for mental health prevention intervention. Furthermore, the strengths, weaknesses, and distinctions of two common …show more content…
For one, from a policy perspective, even though some prevention programs may be highly effective, it is difficult to justify using limited resources to fund them if they are not cost effective (US HHS & SAMHSA, 2007). Economic evaluations have the ability to demonstrate to policy makers that proposed prevention interventions can not only improve health but also save society money in the long-run (Foster et al., 2003). More specifically, economic evaluations provide a means to demonstrate the long-term financial and social benefits of a intervention, which is important for a program that has the objective of preventing adverse outcomes that may not appear until multiple years following the intervention (Foster et al., 2003). Economic evaluations are also a more reliable means to compare prevention interventions that may be equally effective, particularly when budget deficits limit the ability to fund all prevention interventions that have demonstrated positive outcomes. Economic evaluations also allow policy makers and other stakeholders to utilize more transparent methods of comparing interventions, versus approaches that may appear more subjective (O'Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009). As mentioned previously, CBA and CEA are common economic evaluation methods for mental health interventions that primarily differ in the means by which they measure intervention outcomes(O'Connell et al., …show more content…
For one, since this was intervention conducted in a small study sample, this CEA may not be generalizable to a wider population. Furthermore, this study had to use multiple sources to estimate patient costs in its CEA, which may not be accurate (O'Connell et al., 2009). Moreover, the QALY calculations that were utilized for this analysis may not be an appropriate outcome measure, particularly since they were converted from a different metric (depression free days). Unfortunately, the accuracy of CEAs are highly reliant on the assumption regarding health outcome and costs measures that are used in its calculations (O'Connell et al., 2009). Finally, while the study team did attempt to implement this program in a way that would be used under normal circumstances, it is highly possible that the strategies used over-reached what would be used outside the context of a research study. However, this could not be accounted for in the CEA. Therefore, while this study generated significant results on the cost-effectiveness of such a program, these limitations are important considerations that are common among CEAs for mental health prevention