International health care providers have flocked to Haiti and other disaster-affected countries in record numbers. Anecdotal articles often give “body counts” to describe what was accomplished, followed months later by articles suggesting outcomes could have been better. Mention will be made that various interventions were “expensive,” or not the best use of limited funds. But there is very little science to post-intervention evaluations, especially with regard to the value for the money spent. This is surprising, because a large body of literature exists with regard to the Cost Utility Analysis (CUA) of health care interventions. Applying reproducible metrics to disaster interventions will help improve performance.

This study will: (1) introduce and explain basic CUA; (2) review why the application of CUA is difficult in disaster settings; (3) consider how disasters may be unique with regard to CUA; (4) demonstrate past and theoretical utilization of CUA in disaster settings; and (5) suggest future utilization of CUA by healthcare providers in Disaster Response.

Zoraster R. Cost utility analyses in international disaster responses—where are they? Prehosp Disaster Med. 2012;27(2):1-6.

Nature conservation can often be costly and the resources available are often less than are required. Resource allocations and expenditures for nature conservation have an opportunity cost in terms of foregone projects, but are rarely subjected to as much scrutiny as other public activities. Failure to apply economic tools to nature conservation decision making can result in errors in project selection, wasted use of scarce resources, and lower levels of conservation than it is possible to achieve from the resources available. In some instances where economics has been proposed for use in nature conservation research, the methodologies applied provide information that is of limited usefulness to decision makers. Non-market valuation has limited potential to help in nature conservation decision making, is costly to complete and should be supplanted by more useful techniques that focus on the cost and the payoff from nature conservation actions. In contrast, Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Cost Utility Analysis are practical tools that can provide valuable information for conservation decision makers and improve conservation achievement.