Discussing Cost-Effective Analysis

This week I was directed to provide insight to the cost-effective analysis (CEA) provided by Penner (2004) in A Cost-Effective Analysis for Proposed Alternative Interventions to Post-Procedure Surgical Pain Reduction. Within the CEA, three alternative treatments (guided imagery, hypnosis, and biofeedback) are proposed to reduce post-operative pain. The CEA is used to determine the efficiency that each intervention offers comparably to each of the other two alternatives.

I developed a PowerPoint™ presentation [click here] to provide a summation of the CEA and visually present the information for a quick rationalization of the chosen intervention. I will explain each slide of the PowerPoint™ as it pertains to the CEA.

The Cost-Effective Analysis

The CEA provided by Penner (2004) describes the various costs and benefits of using guided imagery, hypnosis, and biofeedback therapies to reduce post-operative pain (as defined on slide #3), which improves the overall healing process. The objective, as noted on slide #2, is the importance of effective pain control. The author of the CEA concedes that all three interventions similarly meet the therapeutic objective of limiting post-operative pain in a safe and low-risk manner; however, the cost differences are significant.


As provided in the CEA, the most significant tangible benefits, as mentioned above, are providing effective pain management in a safe, low-risk manner. Additionally, and as a result of reducing pain effectively, increased patient satisfaction, better patient compliance, and overall better healing leads to reduced costs associated with post-operative recovery, such as reduced length of stay and reduced need for post-surgical care (e.g. nursing care, physician care, rehospitalization, medications). Slide #4 of the presentation outlines these similar benefits.


The costs of each intervention are significant factors in deciding which intervention to promote. Once the annual cost for each intervention if figured, each of the identified costs are distributed across the expected patient volume of 197 and further distributed over the likelihood of each of three surgical procedures (spinal fusion, total hip replacement, and auto hema stem cell transplant) being performed. Though this is largely unnecessary, it does provide perspective for how the costs will be distributed and raise the overall cost for each surgical procedure performed, as shown on slide #8. The total annual cost for each intervention, as well as the per-patient cost, is outlined on slide #5 and graphed on slides #6 and #7.

The fixed costs for guided imagery include a psychology consultant, a surgery PA coordinator, wages for clerical staff, and training for the surgery PA.

The fixed costs for hypnosis includes a psychologist skilled in hypnotherapy and wages for clerical staff. The amount of resources for hypnosis are significantly less than for guided imagery; however, the intervention is more substantial requiring significantly more hours per week paid (12 for hypnosis vs. 2 for guided imagery).

The fixed costs for biofeedback are more equivalent to, though slightly more than, those of guided imagery. Biofeedback requires a psychology consultant, a surgery PA coordinator, wages for clerical staff, and training for the surgery PA, but the fixed costs for biofeedback also include specific equipment, including skin sensors, two video monitors, VCRs, and carts.

The total identified costs for guided imagery is 32.18% less than biofeedback and 64.56% less than hypnosis.


Based on the CEA, the most cost-effective intervention for impacting and controlling post-operative pain on patients undergoing one of the three surgical procedures outlined is guided imagery. This result is stated on slide #10.


The appropriate management of pain is crucial to patient care. Assuming that the three interventions investigated are equally effective towards the objective of reducing and controlling pain, the cost of each intervention is the deciding factor when considering which of the three interventions to employ. In this case, guided imagery is the most cost-effective intervention and is the recommended intervention, per the CEA.

It is important to understand that these costs will be borne by not one but three different departments – the pain clinic, the orthopedic surgery department, and the patient education department. This cost-sharing removes the burden of providing the intervention from a single department and disperses the burden over the budgets of three different departments.


Penner, S. J. (2004). Introduction to health care economics & financial management: fundamental concepts with practical applications. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.