Yes, I prefer to calculate the cost-effectiveness in terms of benefits per unit cost. This way, the expected cost-effectiveness can be multiplied by the cost to obtain the expected benefits. In contrast, the cost cannot be divided by the expected cost per unit benefit to obtain the expected benefits.
Another advantage of benefits per unit cost is that they always increase with the goodness of the intervention, whereas the cost per unit benefit has a more confusing relationship (when it can be both positive and negative).
the cost is practically never zero
Yes, I do not think the cost can be zero. Even if the monetary cost is zero, there are always time costs.
I think that in practice you (almost) always want to calculate lives/​$, not $/​life, and the cost is practically never zero
Hi Lorenzo,
Yes, I prefer to calculate the cost-effectiveness in terms of benefits per unit cost. This way, the expected cost-effectiveness can be multiplied by the cost to obtain the expected benefits. In contrast, the cost cannot be divided by the expected cost per unit benefit to obtain the expected benefits.
Another advantage of benefits per unit cost is that they always increase with the goodness of the intervention, whereas the cost per unit benefit has a more confusing relationship (when it can be both positive and negative).
Yes, I do not think the cost can be zero. Even if the monetary cost is zero, there are always time costs.