PURPOSE: Historically, most economic evaluations performed on vaccine introduction were cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and budget impact analysis (BIA). However, given the inherent limitation of dissociating budget from outcome value in either type of analysis, policy-makers remain in a dilemma on how to best allocate vaccine budgets. The workshop aims to: 1) provide an overview of how to appropriately apply CEA and BIA in vaccine introduction decisions; 2) introduce constrained optimization analysis (CO) and real world examples of its adoption by Asia-Pacific governments; 3) present how CO may complement CEA and BIA in the whole vaccine decision-making process. DESCRIPTION: While CEA and BIA are well-known and appropriate in treatment applications, they have routinely been applied in the vaccine setting without fully understanding what type of analyses should be most applicable to address the policy questions. A major concern for a decision maker is not simply about the cost-effectiveness of the new vaccination program, but also about the availability and sustainability of the budget and how to prioritize among the different vaccination programs. For the past two years, global initiatives including ISPOR taskforce on health economics of vaccines have taken a view of presenting alternative economic evaluations to CEA and BIA including CO modeling and fiscal health modeling with a focus on budgeting. CO tries to find the best combination of different interventions under specific constraints including budget, while maximizing outcomes defined by policy makers. Having those new approaches of economic assessments available now is fine but the question becomes what is the most appropriate, or what characterizes and differentiates CEA and BIA from CO and how to handle that difference at best among them? This workshop will tackle that specific dilemma with concrete examples from the Asia-Pacific region. It will show how different methods can be applied and complement each other.