Cost-benefit analysis is one of the most commonly used economic evaluation methods, which helps to inform the economic value of a program to decision makers. However, the selection of a correct benefit estimation method remains critical for accurate cost-benefit analysis. This paper compared benefit estimations among three different benefit estimation models.

Data from community-based chronic hypertension management programs in a city in South Korea were used. Three different benefit estimation methods were compared. The first was a standard deterministic estimation model; second, a repeated-measures deterministic estimation model; and third, a transitional probability estimation model.

The estimated net benefit of the three different methods were $1,273.01, $-3,749.42, and $-5,122.55 respectively.

The transitional probability estimation model showed the most correct and realistic benefit estimation, as it traced possible paths of changing status between time points and it accounted for both positive and negative benefits.