Cost–consequence analysis of public health interventions

Abstract

This chapter opens with a discussion around cost–consequence analysis (CCA) and the UK’s NICE recommendation to use CCA in addition to cost–utility analysis for evaluating public health interventions. CCA is sometimes referred to as a disaggregated approach, because the benefits and costs are not combined in a single ratio such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost–utility analysis. CCA provides a clear descriptive summary for decision-makers that is often easier to interpret than cost-effectiveness, cost–utility, and cost–benefit analysis. The reader or the decision-maker has to form their own opinion concerning the relative importance of costs and outcomes. The chapter offers a case study of CCA by comparing a yoga-based intervention with self-care for managing musculoskeletal conditions in the workplace. The chapter ends with a summary of the principle benefits and major drawbacks of CCA.