Abstract

Background

It is an unresolved issue as to whether cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is the preferable analytical toolkit for use in health technology assessment (HTA). The distinction between the two and an expressed preference for CEA go back at least to 1980 in the USA and, most recently, a Harvard-based group has been reappraising the case for CBA.

Objectives

This article seeks to answer the question: would the use of cost-benefit analysis rather than the more usual cost-effectiveness analysis be an improvement, specifically in appraising health and health-related investments in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) as they transition to Universal Health Coverage?.

Methods/Results

A selective literature review charts the welfare economics (welfarism and extra-welfarism) roots of both approaches. The principal distinguishing feature of the two is the monetary valuation of health outcomes under CBA compared with the use of health constructs such as the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) or Disability-Adjusted Life-Year (DALY) under CEA. The former enables direct comparison of the outcomes of health investments with the monetized outcomes of other investments, while the CEA approach facilitates direct comparisons with other health investments. Seven challenges in using CBA in developing countries arise, including ethical issues in outcome valuation, practical challenges in the acquisition of data, intrinsic bias in data on values, and some of the practical issues of implementation for either CBA or CEA.

Conclusions

We conclude with a list of nine issues that both CBA and CEA need to settle if they are to be useful in LMICs. For the immediate future we judge CBA to be the less practicable.