OBJECTIVES: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is commonly calculated by health-economic researchers as a method to communicate the relative incremental value among treatments. It is intended as evidence to determine whether a drug is a good value. However, as a single number presented as a value in a local currency it is poorly understood by the average health care decision maker(s). The objective of this project was to re-examine the ICER value and design an economic calculation that would be more readily understood and more easily interpretable by the customers of health economic information, the health care decision makers. METHODS: The components of the ICER were evaluated and rearranged in various possible calculations to yield a value that was comparable across different treatments utilizing the available cost (price) and effectiveness components of medical treatments. RESULTS: The incremental effectiveness per incremental cost ratio (IECR) or “incremental value” is proposed. The incremental difference in effectiveness is expressed as a ratio to the incremental difference in cost, with all factors expressed in percentages. We compared the traditional ICER to the proposed IECR. If a new treatment had an IECR value of 100% it would be considered neutral. If the IECR was less than 100% it could be considered needing alternative value, and any value greater than 100% would generally be considered positive value. Examples: Drug-A:Drug-B Cost $100:$160. Effectiveness 50%:80%. ICER:IECR $200:100%=EVEN. Cost $100:$140. Effectiveness 50%:80% ICER:IECR $133 150%=GOOD. Cost $100:$180. Effectiveness 50%:80%. ICER:IECR $267:75%=POOR. CONCLUSION: The results of the IECR calculation are easily interpretable and produce a value that is simple to compare across treatments. The IECR removes the theoretical value of the ICER, which is difficult for decision makers to interpret, and replaces it with a value that has an interpretable reference range.