Minimal Clinically Important Difference margins (MCIDs) are being applied by reimbursement agencies to assess the non-inferiority of new medications against comparator medications in the Asia Pacific Region. If a new medication is deemed non-inferior to an all ready reimbursed medication either via direct or indirect comparison methods the newer product is generally reimbursed at the same price as the comparator medication (ie. through cost-minimisation). The concept of an MCID margin for survival outcomes, however, is problematic and controversial. A superficial consideration of MCIDs for survival outcomes may lead to the conclusion that the MCID for survival is inappropriate and no difference in survival is acceptable. As such, the MCID for survival should be zero. In this case such an analysis would become a superiority analysis. If this approach to the assessment of such products were to prevail, new products with a high likelihood of affording patients a survival benefit compared to their comparator products may be rejected even on a cost-minimisation basis. Instead, where the point estimate of treatment effect favours the new treatment serious consideration should be given to reimbursing the new product at the same or higher price. Using indirect comparison methods and real world hazard ratio data this research introduces the concept of MCID-cumulative acceptability curves (MCID-CAC) as an aid to making pragmatic reimbursement decisions for new products that may extend patients lives.