Objective: In Ukraine the State program «Reproductive health of the nation for the period till 2015», providing reduction in the quantity of abortions is authorized, using hormonal contraception. The aim was to identify the most cost-effective oral or transdermal contraceptives using a provider perspective. Methods: A decision tree was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptive 3mg drospirenone/0.03 mg ethinylestradiol (D-E) vs. 0.25mg norgestimate/0.035mg ethynilestradiol (NA-E) vs. transdermal contraceptive 6mg norelgestromin/0.6mg ethynilestradiol (transdermal N-E) for preventing a pregnancy per patient per year. Direct medical cost were based on average wholesale prices for medicines (01.10.2007),ans physician, laboratory costs based on tariffs of Lviv family planning center. Probability data that included compliance and pregnancy rates were extracted from randomized clinical trials and public resources. A probablistic sensitivity analysis of free parameters was conducted through a Monte-Carlo simulation. Key parameters were sampled from beta disributions. Results: In the base case, NA-E was found to be the most cost-effective alternative. NA-E cost 321UAH (1 USD = 5.05 UAH) compared to 930UAH for D-E, 1319UAH for transdermal N-E to prevent a single pregnancy per patient per year. Monte –Carlo sensivity analysis confirmed these findings. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness ratio NA-E dominated all contraceptive strategies.These direct medical costs, in turn, were driven by differential compliance that favored NA-E.