IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The death of cost‐minimization analysis?


  • Andrew H. Briggs
  • Bernie J. O'Brien


Four different types of evaluation methods, cost‐benefit analysis (CBA), cost‐utility analysis (CUA), cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost‐minimization analysis (CMA), are usually distinguished. In this note, we pronounce the (near) death of CMA by showing the rare circumstances under which CMA is an appropriate method of analysis. We argue that it is inappropriate for separate and sequential hypothesis tests on differences in effects and costs to determine whether incremental cost‐effectiveness (or cost‐utility) should be estimated. We further argue that the analytic focus should be on the estimation of the joint density of cost and effect differences, the quantification of uncertainty surrounding the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio and the presentation of such data as cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves. Two examples from recently published CEA are employed to illustrate the issues. The first shows a situation where analysts might be tempted (inappropriately) to employ CMA rather than CEA. The second illustrates one of the rare circumstances in which CMA may be justified as a legitimate form of analysis. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew H. Briggs & Bernie J. O'Brien, 2001. "The death of cost‐minimization analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 179-184, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:10:y:2001:i:2:p:179-184
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.584

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740.
    2. Eugene M. Laska & Morris Meisner & Carole Siegel, 1997. "Statistical Inference for Cost–Effectiveness Ratios," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 229-242, May.
    3. Magnus Tambour, 1997. "The Impact of Health Care Policy Initiatives on Productivity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(1), pages 57-70, January.
    4. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Lairson, David R. & Chan, Wen & Chang, Yu-Chia & del Junco, Deborah J. & Vernon, Sally W., 2011. "Cost-effectiveness of targeted versus tailored interventions to promote mammography screening among women military veterans in the United States," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 97-104, May.
    2. Nikki McCaffrey & Meera Agar & Janeane Harlum & Jonathon Karnon & David Currow & Simon Eckermann, 2015. "Better Informing Decision Making with Multiple Outcomes Cost-Effectiveness Analysis under Uncertainty in Cost-Disutility Space," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Anthony Scott & Michela Tinelli & Christine Bond, 2007. "Costs of a Community Pharmacist-Led Medicines Management Service for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease in England," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 397-411, May.
    4. Erin M Graybill & Peter McMeekin & John Wildman, 2014. "Can Aging in Place Be Cost Effective? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-6, July.
    5. Nicholas Graves & Mary Courtney & Helen Edwards & Anne Chang & Anthony Parker & Kathleen Finlayson, 2009. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Intervention to Reduce Emergency Re-Admissions to Hospital among Older Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-9, October.
    6. Andrew R. Willan & Eleanor M. Pinto & Bernie J. O'Brien & Padma Kaul & Ron Goeree & Larry Lynd & Paul W. Armstrong, 2005. "Country specific cost comparisons from multinational clinical trials using empirical Bayesian shrinkage estimation: the Canadian ASSENT‐3 economic analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 327-338, April.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:10:y:2001:i:2:p:179-184. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.