8.1 Concepts of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis
4 min read•august 16, 2024
Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses are crucial tools in impact evaluation. They help policymakers and program managers make informed decisions by comparing the costs and outcomes of different interventions.
These analyses provide a systematic way to assess which programs offer the best value for money. By quantifying economic value, they enhance accountability and support evidence-based policymaking, especially when resources are limited.
Cost-effectiveness analysis in impact evaluation
Defining cost-effectiveness analysis
Top images from around the web for Defining cost-effectiveness analysis
Modelling the cost-effectiveness of introducing the RTS,S malaria vaccine relative to scaling up ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | A cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-based intervention for prevention of ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Why Economic Analysis of Health System Improvement Interventions Matters View original
Is this image relevant?
Modelling the cost-effectiveness of introducing the RTS,S malaria vaccine relative to scaling up ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | A cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-based intervention for prevention of ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Defining cost-effectiveness analysis
Modelling the cost-effectiveness of introducing the RTS,S malaria vaccine relative to scaling up ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | A cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-based intervention for prevention of ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Why Economic Analysis of Health System Improvement Interventions Matters View original
Is this image relevant?
Modelling the cost-effectiveness of introducing the RTS,S malaria vaccine relative to scaling up ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | A cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-based intervention for prevention of ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
(CEA) systematically compares relative costs and outcomes of different interventions or programs
CEA measures cost per unit of outcome achieved expressed as a (CER)
CEA allows comparison of programs with similar objectives but different scales or contexts
CEA complements other impact evaluation methods by adding economic dimension to assessment of program effectiveness
Role of CEA in impact evaluation
Informs resource allocation decisions for policymakers and program managers
Determines which interventions provide best value for money
Improves program efficiency by identifying most cost-effective approaches
Enhances accountability by quantifying economic value of program outcomes
Supports evidence-based policymaking through rigorous economic analysis
Facilitates prioritization of interventions with limited budgets
Calculating and interpreting CEA results
Cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) calculated by dividing total program costs by total outcomes achieved
Lower CER indicates greater cost-effectiveness (more outcomes per dollar spent)
(ICER) compares difference in costs to difference in outcomes between two interventions
assesses robustness of CEA results to changes in key assumptions
Results often presented as cost per life saved, cost per additional year of schooling, etc.
Benchmarks (WHO-CHOICE thresholds) help interpret if intervention is cost-effective
Cost-effectiveness vs cost-benefit analysis
Key differences in methodology
CEA measures outcomes in natural units (lives saved, test scores improved) while CBA converts all outcomes to monetary values
CEA compares interventions with similar outcomes whereas CBA compares programs with different types of outcomes
CBA calculates net benefits (benefits minus costs) while CEA focuses on cost per unit of outcome achieved
CEA avoids monetizing intangible outcomes making it easier to conduct for some social or health interventions
CBA provides more comprehensive economic assessment but faces challenges in valuing non-market goods
Strengths and limitations
CEA typically easier to conduct and communicate due to use of natural outcome units
CBA allows comparison across diverse sectors by converting all impacts to monetary terms
CEA limited to comparing interventions with similar outcomes while CBA can compare any interventions
CBA results (, ) more intuitive for some decision-makers
CEA avoids ethical concerns of monetizing certain outcomes (value of human life)
CBA results more sensitive to assumptions about monetary valuation of outcomes
Choosing between CEA and CBA
Nature of program outcomes influences choice (easily monetized or not)
Available data on costs and benefits affects feasibility of each approach
Decision-making context determines most appropriate analysis (within sector vs across sectors)
Stakeholder preferences for natural units vs monetary valuation impact choice
Time and resources available for analysis factor into decision
Ethical considerations regarding monetization of certain outcomes play a role
Costs and benefits in decision-making
Importance in policy and program decisions
Enables more informed and rational decision-making in policy and program implementation
Helps prioritize interventions and allocate limited resources efficiently across competing programs
Identifies interventions providing greatest net social benefit through
Promotes transparency and accountability in public spending by quantifying value for money
Facilitates comparison of diverse policy options to justify program choices to stakeholders
Consideration of long-term costs and benefits leads to more sustainable and impactful interventions