The person hours saved through enhancements and productivity increases can be converted to a dollar value. It implies that if the monetary benefits exceed the costs, the program should be implemented. While cost-benefit analysis is theoretically sound, offering a way to trade off all effects of an intervention using a single metric, techniques for monetizing health and other benefits are in their infancy. Of course this has the disadvantage of ignoring any other benefits of health promotion interventions. The advantage is that it temporarily sidesteps the need to place a dollar value on a year of life.
Confusion often surrounds discussions of cost-effectiveness analysis.
Each of these uses leads to miscommunication and can result in bad policy decisions. An intervention is not always more cost-effective simply because it affects large numbers of people. Banning asbestos benefits only those few people exposed in the workplace, while school buses are ridden by millions of children each year. This is, in part, because asbestos exposure is always hazardous, but fatal school bus accidents are quite rare. Cost-effective interventions are not necessarily those interventions which are most effective.