ISSUE: As health economic practitioners around the globe seek assistance in conducting cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), they may turn to the guiding principles made publicly available by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the United States and by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom. Should global health economists be armed with a unified direction for designing, implementing, and reporting CEAs that has no borders? How do the two sets of principles compare? Among the differences, is there a rationale for regional variations (e.g., due to distinctions in health systems, culture, sociodemographics of the population) and should the differences be reconciled? Panelists will consider the similarities and differences between the two frameworks (Sussman), the rationale for differences from the US perspective (Ollendorf), and the rationale for differences from the UK perspective (Jonsson). OVERVIEW: CEAs are a universal technique designed to assess health outcomes and costs of interventions, and ultimately aid in resource allocation decisions. In the United States, CEAs are beginning to emerge from closed health economic circles to the national landscape, due in part to ICER’s attempt to advance the role of CEAs in health policy and insurer coverage decisions. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, CEAs continue to play a vital role in informing treatment adoption, with NICE setting the standard for how national health systems should employ CEAs. In both regional settings, the respective organizations have disseminated their conceptual approach for conducting CEAs for public consumption. The panel will highlight key health economic modeling practices behind ICER’s framework and NICE’s guidelines as well as the similarities and differences between them. Panelists will present their perspectives and debate the reasons for regional differences between the two sets of principles, followed by dialogue with the audience.