OBJECTIVES::  This study aims to review the position of some countries in relation to the cost-effectiveness threshold. METHODS::  An electronic search on Medline, Lilacs and ScienceDirect was conducted and complemented by references of included studies, Google Scholar and conference abstracts. RESULTS::  In most places evaluated, an explicit cost-effectiveness threshold has never been formally adopted, but an implicit one could be determined by research in some countries. WHO-Choice suggested, in 2005, that therapeutic alternatives that add less than three times the GDP per capita/DALY should be considered cost-effective. There is a resilience of benchmark values of 50,000 to 100,000 USD/QALY in USA-based studies. In the UK, NICE adopts thresholds of 20,000 to 30,000 GBP/QALY, which could be extended to 50,000 GBP/QALY for end-of-life care. In Canada, CADTH has no explicit threshold value for cost-effectiveness studies, but the benchmark value of 50,000 CAD/QALY is often cited in studies. In Thailand, the commissioners of health technology assessment recommended that the threshold should not be higher than 1.2 Gross National Income per capita/QALY. In Poland, a general threshold of three GPD per capita/QALY or LYG was legally established in 2012. Ireland legally established a 45,000 EUR/QALY threshold for HTA of pharmaceuticals in 2012. Germany established a variable threshold based on an efficiency frontier curve. CONCLUSIONS:: For most countries evaluated, it can be showed that the threshold value set is under WHO-Choice’s recommended threshold. With that in mind, the use of the WHO-Choice threshold to issue recommendations on cost-effectiveness studies might justify the requisition of higher prices for the pharmaceutical companies in health technology assessment studies, recommend inefficient technologies for funding and lead to increasing health spending.