Abstract Background Many health care systems claim to incorporate the cost-effectiveness criterion in their investment decisions. Information on the system’s willingness to pay per effectiveness unit, normally measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), however, is not available in most countries. This is partly because of the controversy that remains around the use of a cost-effectiveness threshold, about what the threshold ought to represent, and about the appropriate methodology to arrive at a threshold value. Objectives The aim of this article was to identify and critically appraise the conceptual perspectives and methodologies used to date to estimate the cost-effectiveness threshold. Methods We provided an in-depth discussion of different conceptual views and undertook a systematic review of empirical analyses. Identified studies were categorized into the two main conceptual perspectives that argue that the threshold should reflect 1) the value that society places on a QALY and 2) the opportunity cost of investment to the system given budget constraints. Results These studies showed different underpinning assumptions, strengths, and limitations, which are highlighted and discussed. Furthermore, this review allowed us to compare the cost-effectiveness threshold estimates derived from different types of studies. We found that thresholds based on society’s valuation of a QALY are generally larger than thresholds resulting from estimating the opportunity cost to the health care system. Conclusions This implies that some interventions with positive social net benefits, as informed by individuals’ preferences, might not be an appropriate use of resources under fixed budget constraints.