In Russia strict formally approach for pharmacoeconomic evaluation assessment, based on integral score scale, had been implemented since 2014. Objective: To analyze the impact of integral scale assessment (ISA) of pharmacoeconomic evaluation for reimbursement decision-making in Russia. We conducted SWOT analysis of existing ISA for pharmacoeconomic evaluation. Instead of ICER threshold, in Russia medicine to be reimbursed, should obtain at least +6 scores (S) from results of both cost-effectiveness (CEA) and budget impact analysis (BIA). Association between S and results of CEA/BIA is determined by the size of deviation (in percent) from CEA or BIA results of medicine and its comparator. Medicine may obtain from -8S to +10S by results of CEA and from -4S to +8S from results of BIA (positive S are obtained, if medicine has superiority under comparator, negativewhen medicine got worse pharmacoeconomic result, then comparator). There are number of scenarios of CEA with different scores assessment: basic cost-effectiveness ratio calculation (gives from +6S to +10S); cost-minimization analysis (gives from -8S to +8S); special case, when medicine is less effectiveness then comparator (gives from -7S to +1S); etc. Strength of implemented approach is its easiness and transparency: if computing CER value for medicine is from 20% to 40% lower, then for comparator, it gives +8S. Weakness is, that it doesn't fit all possible cases and sometimes provides inadequacy assessment: BIA assessment requires to compare budget with and without analyzed medicine, and if there are large number of comparators budget impact of analyzed medicine will be always underestimated. Opportunities are associated with possible flexibility of this approach in changing of number of S and size of deviation. The primary threat is to become a procrustean bed, that will impact availability of medicines. After improvements ISA for pharmacoeconomic evaluation may become effective approach for reimbursement decision-making.