The publication of ‘The Health of the Nation’ [Department of Health (1992) The Health of the Nation. A Strategy for the Health of England. CM 1986, HMSO.] has added increased emphasis to the long standing debate concerning the relative cost-effectiveness of health prevention versus health cure. The benefits arising from curative interventions are highly visible, occur in identifiable individuals and can be quantified using an increasing stock of clinical and quality of life measures. Unfortunately the benefits of health promotion activities are much more difficult to quantify and measure given that their success depends upon ill health not occurring. In order for health promotion to effectively compete for limited health care resources it must ensure that the benefits of its work are apparent to policy makers. This paper describes a methodology by which such benefits can be quantified in readily measurable terms. This enables health promotion to make an effective case for additional resources using ‘hard’ quantified data that emphasizes the value for money and health gain (or rather the prevention of health loss) that can be derived from interventions of this nature. The methodology is based on readily available data relating to the levels of morbidity and mortality experienced by any given population. Epidemiological data is then utilized to quantify the link between ill health and the problem being addressed by the health promotion activity. The model described in this paper was tested in relation to the anticipated impact of an anti-smoking programme upon the health experience of the population within the North West of England.