Objective: Using a societal perspective, to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Lucentis compared to Visudyne Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) and best supportive care in treating patients with AMD. Methods: A cost-effectiveness model was created using outcome data from the ANCHOR and MARINA clinical trials. The model operates on quarterly cycles and a 10-year time horizon. At baseline, Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity was 55 and average age was 77 in the base case. Cost of services were obtained from the CMS website, drug costs were obtained from ASP prices, and visual impairment costs were based on a prospective study by Schmier and colleagues. All costs were inflated to 2007 dollars using the Health Services CPI. Utility values were based on a time-tradeoff analysis conducted by Brown and colleagues. A 3% discount rate was used for both costs and QALYs. Results: For predominantly classic AMD, Lucentis 0.5mg was a dominant strategy compared to PDT and the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for Lucentis 0.5mg relative to Lucentis 0.3mg was $62,905/QALY. For patients with minimally classic or occult AMD, Lucentis 0.5mg was a dominant strategy compared to best supportive care and the ICER for Lucentis 0.5mg relative to Lucentis 0.3mg was $322,367/QALY. Influential variables driving the results in this analysis include a patient's baseline visual acuity, costs associated with visual impairment, and the price of Lucentis. Conclusion: Despite its high treatment costs, Lucentis is a dominant strategy compared to PDT and best supportive care primarily because it prevents patients from reaching the highly expensive state of blindness. Treating AMD patients with Lucentis before they reach a legal blindness state can generate considerable cost-savings to society.