Which analysis reports costs and outcomes separately without combining them?

• A. Cost-consequence analysis
• B. Cost-benefit analysis
• C. Cost-utility analysis
• D. Cost-effectiveness analysis

Answer: (A)

The main idea is to present costs and outcomes in a disaggregated way, without turning them into a single summary measure. Cost-consequence analysis lays out the total costs of an intervention alongside a range of outcomes in separate columns or rows, so you can see each item on its own and judge tradeoffs based on what matters to you. This approach is especially helpful when outcomes are multi-dimensional or difficult to summarize with one metric, because it keeps the different effects visible and comparable by category rather than forcing them into one number.

In contrast, cost-benefit analysis converts outcomes into monetary terms and produces a net benefit or benefit-cost ratio, allowing a direct dollar-for-dollar comparison. Cost-utility analysis translates outcomes into utility-based units like QALYs, producing ratios such as cost per QALY gained. Cost-effectiveness analysis uses natural units (like life-years saved) and yields a cost-effectiveness ratio. None of those present costs and outcomes in entirely separate lines; they combine them into a single metric, which is why they don’t match the description in this question.