Basic Principles of Health Technology Assessment, Economic Evaluation, and Costing of Healthcare Programs

  • Rosanna TarriconeEmail author
  • Aleksandra Torbica


Finding the equilibrium between raising demand for healthcare services and increasing cost containment pressures needed to guarantee the sustainability is the main challenge of healthcare systems around the world.

In this context, health economic studies provide information to decision makers for efficient use of available resources for maximizing health benefits. Economic evaluation is one part of health economics, and it is a tool for comparing costs and consequences of different interventions. Economic evaluation analysis is one of the main pillars of a broader evaluative framework: health technology assessment (HTA) which refers to the systematic evaluation of properties, effects, and/or impacts of health technology.

The traditional classification of economic evaluation includes cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis. This chapter introduces readers to the basic pillars of HTA, its processes, and briefly explains the differences between cost-effectiveness analysis (used when the outcomes may vary, but can be expressed in common natural units), cost-utility analysis (used when outcomes do vary—for example, quality of life scales), and cost-benefit analysis (used when a monetary value is being placed on services received). The aim is to provide a very introductory overview of these concepts which have been extensively described in the literature.


Health technology assessment Economic evaluation Cost-effectiveness analysis Cost-utility analysis Cost-benefit analysis 


  1. 1.
    Mossialos E, Le Grand J, editors. Health care and cost containment in the European Union. London: Ashgate; 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;63:121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Velasco-Garrido M, Busse R. Health technology assessment. An introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. European Observatory on Healthcare Systems and Policies; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Office of Health Technology Assessment. Development of medical technology: opportunities for assessment. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1976.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Office of Health Technology Assessment. Development of medical technology: opportunities for assessment. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1978.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quaglini S, Rognoni C, Spazzolini C, Priori SG, Mannarino S, Schwartz PJ. Cost-effectiveness of neonatal ECG screening for the long QT syndrome. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(15):1824–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drummond MF, Scuplher M, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for economic evaluation in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tarricone R. Valutazioni economiche e management in sanità. Milano: McGraw-Hill; 2004.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allen C, Beecham J. Costing services: ideals and reality. In Netten A, Beecham J. (eds) Costing community care. Ashgate, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tarricone R, Torbica A. Costing and performance in healthcare management. In: Faltin FW, Kenett RS, Ruggeri F, editors. Statistical methods in healthcare. Hoboken: Wiley; 2012. p. 386–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tarricone R. Cost-of-illness analysis—what room in health economics? Health Policy. 2006;77(1):51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drummond MF, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Economic evaluation of medical devices. Oxford research encyclopedia: economics and finance; 2018.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drummond M, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Assessing the added value of health technologies: reconciling different perspectives. Value Health. 2013;16(1):S7–S13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ciani O, Torbica A, Tarricone R. Diffusion and use of health technology assessment in policy making: what lessons for decentralised healthcare systems? Health Policy. 2012;108(2–3):194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Political ScienceBocconi UniversityMilanItaly
  2. 2.Division of GovernmentHealth and Non Profit, SDA Bocconi School of ManagementMilanItaly
  3. 3.CERGAS-SDA, Bocconi UniversityMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations