OBJECTIVES: Develop an economic tool in association between costs and outcomes which would help health managers to implement the Pharmaceutical Care (PC) to reduce the morbi-mortality of hypertension. METHODS: This is a pharmacoeconomics study nested non-randomized-controlled study designed as before/after. It was performed in two basic units of the public health system in the city of Ribeirão Preto-SP, Brazil. During the experimental study were collected seven years of data of 104 hypertensive patients, followed up during 2009 by PC. These data were organized in before-PC (2006-2008), PC (2009) and post-PC (2010-2012). The economic analysis was planned in 5 stage: direct-cost analysis; indirect-cost analysis (Markov modeling); obtain the net present value by cash flow; projection of benefits in association with epidemiological indicators; the cost-effectiveness analisis considering the epidemiological indicators, and  to sensitivity will be performed the tornado diagram. The results obtained are related to the first stage, comprising direct medical and direct non-medical costs. To data analisis was carried cochran Q test (α=5%), SAS v.9.2 software, and for ICER was considered the threshold cost-effectiveness of US$30,721.28 (3x GDP/capita national in 2013). RESULTS: The mean systolic and diastolic pressures were respectively: pre-PC, 134mmHg (SD=17.1) and 84mmHg (SD=8.8); PC, 118mmHg (SD=7.6) and 75mmHg (SD=5.4); post-PC, 125mmHg (SD=10.8) and 79mmHg (SD=7.8). This represented 54.4%, 98.2% and 93% of patients [p<0.0001] with blood pressure at satisfactory levels during periods pre-PC, PC and post-PC, respectively. To direct-cost analysis, the resulting difference was -US$ 130.74 (-US$ 1.25 / patient year) and US$ 1,724.82 (US$ 16.58 / patient year), the periods PC and post-PC, respectively. The Cost-Benefit Ratio obtained was 167.68. The ICER was US$ 478.41 and US$ 42.95 in the periods PC and post-PC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that this model PC showed evidence for reduced blood pressure of patients followed up. Although it was not cost-beneficial, it was cost-effective.