Submitted by:

Health-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) have been used to analyze numerous health interventions but have not been widely adopted as tools to analyze environmental policies. Analyses of environmental regulations have typically used benefit-cost analysis to characterize impacts on social welfare. Benefit-cost analyses allow for aggregation of the benefits of reducing mortality risks with other monetized benefits of reducing air pollution, including reduced risk of acute and chronic morbidity, and non-health benefits. One of the great advantages of the benefit-cost paradigm is that a wide range of quantifiable benefits can be compared to costs to evaluate the economic efficiency of particular actions. However, alternative paradigms such as CEA and CUA analyses may also provide useful insights. CEA involves estimation of the costs per unit of benefit (e.g., lives or life years saved). CUA is a special type of CEA using preference-based measures of effectiveness, such as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). QALYs were developed to evaluate the effectiveness of individual medical treatments, and EPA is still evaluating the appropriate methods for CEA for environmental regulations. In this CEA, we estimated statistical lives saved, statistical life years saved, and QALYs gained