5.6 Cost–benefit analyses

Cost–benefit analyses (CBAs) use similar principles to cost-effectiveness analyses, and are a common approach used to analyse the effect of policies outside of the healthcare sector. The key differences between CBAs and cost-effectiveness analyses is that all health outcomes are expressed in monetary values.

In certain contexts, policy-makers may be more familiar or accepting of economic evidence that takes the form of a CBA. One key advantage of a CBA is that it allows a comparison of value for money between health and non-health interventions. In other words, the value for money of a healthcare policy can be compared to a change in policy in the environmental or education sector – this would be useful, for example, for a Ministry of Finance.

However, in practice, health-focused CBAs often omit broader societal costs or rely on contested monetary valuations of health outcomes, which can limit their comparability and relevance. Because AMR strategies should take a One Health approach and involve multi-sectoral stakeholders, there may be circumstances where CBAs are a more appropriate approach to inform decision-making than cost-effectiveness analyses: for example, such as when the decision-makers or funders have a mandate beyond human health.