Which evaluation is appropriate when outcomes are assumed equivalent and only costs are compared?

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

Answer: (B)

When the outcomes across options are assumed to be the same, the decision hinges on which option costs less. This is cost-minimization analysis. In this approach, you compare the total costs of each alternative and you do not weigh differences in outcomes, since they’re treated as equivalent. The option with the lowest cost is preferred, as long as the equivalence of outcomes is a solid, justified assumption. If there’s any doubt about whether the outcomes truly match, CMA isn’t appropriate and a method that accounts for effectiveness should be used.

Why not monetizing benefits? Cost-benefit analysis adds up costs and monetized benefits to determine net benefit, which isn’t necessary when outcomes are assumed identical—you’d be focusing on monetary values of effects that are already considered the same. Why not relating costs to a specific unit of effect? Cost-effectiveness analysis links costs to a measurable outcome, but with equal outcomes there’s no difference to relate costs to. Why not presenting multiple outcomes separately? Cost-consequence analysis lists costs and various outcomes, but CMA provides a single, clear decision rule when effects are equivalent.