Impact · Argument
The case for this model
A cheaper programme exists. It is worth being explicit about why we do not run it.
The cheaper option
And what it costs later
| Decision | Cheap version | What it costs |
|---|---|---|
| Identity | No ABHA linkage | No record next year; every cycle starts again |
| Recording | Free text on paper | No counts, no comparison, no epidemiology |
| Output | A letter home | Lost within a month |
| Referral | Told to see a doctor | No idea whether they went |
| Reporting | A headcount | Nothing the institution can act on |
What the extra buys
Three things, all of them compounding
A second cycle worth more than the first
Because there is something to compare against.
A referral that can be chased
Which converts a finding into treatment, which is the entire point.
Evidence at district scale
Thousands of coded records describe a population. Thousands of letters home describe nothing.
Compare the programmes.
RISE and EPIC, side by side.