Which of the following techniques should be used when conducting an economic appraisal of three or more treatment alternatives?

When conducting an economic appraisal of three or more treatment alternatives, the incremental benefit-cost ratio is particularly valuable as it allows for a comparison of the additional benefits and costs of each alternative relative to a baseline option. This method considers the differences between alternatives, enabling an assessment of how much more (or less) benefits are gained in relation to the costs incurred when choosing one option over another. This is essential in making informed decisions when there are multiple viable treatment options to consider.

Using the incremental benefit-cost ratio helps policymakers and practitioners to identify not just the total economic worth of options, but how each alternative stacks up against the others in terms of their economic efficiency. It effectively highlights which alternative provides the best additional benefit for the additional cost, thus supporting resource allocation in a manner that maximizes societal welfare.

Other methodologies such as the naïve benefit-cost ratio, net present value, and cost-effectiveness analysis serve their purposes but do not specifically focus on the incremental changes among multiple alternatives in the way that the incremental benefit-cost ratio does. For example, the naïve benefit-cost ratio does not consider the relative merits of alternatives beyond simple totals, while net present value focuses on the time value of money rather than comparative analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis quantifies health outcomes against