When evaluating anything, one tries to discern the merit or worth and utilization of something. In this case, health policy evaluation refers to the procedure of trying to find out whether the contents and implementations, among other concepts, have had an impact on the involved parties. The chosen evaluation approach in this discussion is the cost-effectiveness approach, whereby it is essential in evaluating costs, and health gains brought about by any health policy (HELI, 2019). The health department has many projects to undertake that require funding and adequate resources. These projects are interventions and are guided by various policies. The cost effective approach enables the involved stakeholders to prioritize urgent strategies, and once allocated resources are likely to yield the highest improvements and positive impact in public health (HELI, 2019). The significant outcomes in this approach include reduced deaths, increased health insurance purchases, among other health issues.

Closer to the cost-effectiveness approach is the benefit-cost approach that outlines the costs and benefits to be gained from each policy. This approach allows for the determination of the most beneficial projects to the public regarding their health matters. These two approaches are implemented at the development of new health policy or during a modification of an existing policy. However, they contrast in that the CEA focuses on two non-monetary outcomes, while the CBA focuses on financial results (HELI, 2019). In addition, using the formative approach would be similar as it focuses on the feasibility and acceptance levels of policy. These evaluation approaches gather cost and feasibility data, and informs laws makers on how to prioritize the policies, choosing those with more effectiveness and benefits.

An excellent example of implementing the approach is when determining what intervention is the cost effective to implement when undertaking a Disability Adjustment Life Cycle Project. In such a project, there are various interventions such as immunization ($2,500M), improved childcare ($50,000M), and use of combination drugs against some diseases ($50,000M). Each of these interventions differs in cost and effectiveness, thus using the cost-effective approach, the agency can outline expected outcomes and determine which project to undertake first. However, the choice depends on the intervention with a higher impact on public health.

Reference

HELI. (2019). Cost-effectiveness analysis for health interventions. Retrieved from The Health and Environment Linkages Initiative: https://www.who.int/heli/economics/costeffanalysis/en/#:~:targetText=Cost%2Deffectiveness%20Analysis%20quantifies%20the,morbidity%20effects%20of%20an%20intervention.