Health economics is the application of economic methods to questions about health. How much does an intervention cost relative to the benefit it produces, which programme delivers the most impact per dollar spent, and what is the financial case for a policy decision that a government or funder needs to make. The difference from general economic analysis is specificity: health economics has its own established methodologies, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis, disability-adjusted life year calculations, budget impact models that are recognised and expected by health ministries, multilateral agencies, and development partners. Submitting generic economic analysis where a funder expects a formal cost-effectiveness model signals inexperience. We speak the technical language of the sector fluently, and we produce outputs in the formats decision-makers actually accept.

Our clients tend to fall into three groups. The first is governments and health ministries that need economic evidence to justify budget allocations, select between competing interventions, or satisfy the analytical requirements of a funding application. The second is NGOs and development partners preparing proposals for major health funders, the Global Fund, Gavi, USAID, WHO, where economic evaluation is a prerequisite for consideration, not an optional addition. The third is pharmaceutical and research organisations seeking to demonstrate the value of a product or intervention in a specific market context. The right moment to commission this work is earlier than most clients think before the proposal is written, not after, so the economic analysis can shape the design of the programme rather than simply justify it retrospectively.

You do not need to understand the methodology in technical depth, that is precisely what you are engaging us for. What you do need to provide is the programme data, coverage assumptions, and contextual knowledge that only your team holds. We translate that into the analytical inputs, run the models, interpret the findings, and produce outputs in two forms: a full technical report for peer reviewers and institutional partners, and a clear executive summary your leadership and communications teams can actually use. We make a point of walking clients through our findings in plain language before we finalise anything, so you are never presenting analysis you do not feel confident standing behind.

The inputs depend on the type of analysis, but the core requirements are consistent: programme cost data broken down by activity and input, coverage or reach data showing how many people the intervention affects and how, outcome data or estimates showing what change in health status the intervention produces, and the comparator, what the alternative would be in the absence of your programme. If you do not have all of this, that is not unusual and it is not a blocker. We are experienced at working with incomplete data, using published literature and validated assumptions where primary data is thin, and being transparent about the uncertainty that introduces. A credible analysis with acknowledged limitations is far more defensible than a clean-looking model built on shaky inputs.

A focused cost-effectiveness analysis for a single intervention typically takes four to eight weeks from data receipt to final report, longer for complex multi-country evaluations or analyses that require primary data collection. The final output is a written report structured to the standards expected by the commissioning audience, whether that is a national health ministry, a multilateral funder, or a peer-reviewed journal. It includes the model, the assumptions, the results across scenarios, and a policy recommendation section that translates the findings into clear, actionable guidance. Where clients need it, we also produce presentation decks, policy briefs, and one-page summaries designed for non-technical audiences, because analysis that does not get communicated effectively does not change anything.