Cost-effectiveness analysis for priority setting in health: Penny-wise but pound-foolish

Rob Baltussen, Werner Brouwer, Louis Niessen

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article


Cost-effectiveness analysis has much conceptual attractiveness in priority setting but is not used to its full potential to assist policy-makers on making choices in health in developed or in developing countries. We call for a shift away from present economic evaluation activities - that tend to produce ad hoc and incomparable economic evaluation studies and, therefore, add little to the compendium of knowledge of cost-effectiveness of health interventions in general - toward a more systematic approach. Research efforts in economic evaluation should build on the foundations of cost-effectiveness research of the past decades to arrive at an informative methodology useful for national policy-makers. This strategy means that governments should steer sectoral cost-effectiveness analysis to obtain systematic and comprehensive information on the economic attractiveness of a set of new and current interventions, using a standardized methodology and capturing interactions between interventions. Without redirecting the focus of economic evaluation research, choosing in health care bears the risk to remain penny-wise but pound-foolish.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)532-534
Number of pages3
JournalInternational journal of technology assessment in health care
Issue number4
StatePublished - Oct 2005


  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Economic evaluation
  • Methodology
  • Priority setting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-effectiveness analysis for priority setting in health: Penny-wise but pound-foolish'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this