Differentiating CMA from CEA in economic evaluations.

• A. CMA uses QALYs; CEA uses life-years gained.
• B. CMA requires a willingness-to-pay threshold; CEA does not.
• C. CMA assumes equal outcomes and compares costs only; CEA compares costs and health outcomes to determine the most cost-effective option.
• D. CMA models long-term effects; CEA only short-term effects.

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that CMA (Cost Minimization Analysis) is used only when the health outcomes of the options are assumed to be the same, so the decision rests solely on which option costs less. In that scenario, you’re not comparing effectiveness—only costs—to pick the cheaper alternative.

CEA (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) grows from comparing both costs and health outcomes. It uses a measure of effect (like life-years gained or QALYs) and often yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to determine which option gives more health benefit per unit of cost. This is the approach when outcomes differ or when there’s uncertainty about their equivalence.

So CMA is best when outcomes are equal and you’re choosing strictly by cost, while CEA directly weighs costs against health effects to judge value. The other statements misstate this distinction—CMA does not rely on specific health-outcome units, thresholds or long-term vs short-term horizons as the defining feature of the method.