The approval of a drug requires previous evaluation of its safety and efficacy. The regulatory policies adopted can be permissive (a lenient policy with higher probability of acceptance) or restrictive (a very strict process with high probability of rejection). The drugs presented for their approval, independently of the regulatory policy adopted, are the same and the probability that they are safe and effective is 0.70(PSE). Under the restrictive policy, the probability that the drug is accepted (PA) is 0.20, while this probability is 0.6 with the permissive policy. Let's accept that there are 4 possible outcomes of this regulatory process: safe and effective drug approved (SEA); safe and effective drug rejected (SER); unsafe and effective drug approved (NSEA); and unsafe and effective drug rejected (NSER). Assume that patients lose 5 quality-adjusted life years (QALYS) if untreated with the drug. If the drug is safe and effective, the patient does not lose any QALY because of the illness. If the drug is not safe and effective and it is administered nonetheless, each patient will entail a loss of 3 QALYs, in addition to the ones that the patient would have lost if not treated. Use the economic evaluation techniques to evaluate the outcomes of these two regulatory policies. Which economic evaluation technique do you think is the best suited to this situation?: Select one: O a. Cost minimisation analysis. O b. A cost-utility analysis. O c. A contingent valuation study. O d. A cost-effectivenes analysis