Health authorities using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) for informing reimbursement decisions on health technologies increasingly require economic evaluations encompassing both CEA and budget impact analysis (BIA). Good Research Practices advocate that the economic and clinical assumptions underlying these analyses are aligned and consistently applied. Nonetheless, CEAs and BIAs often are stand-alone analyses used in different stages of the decision-making process. This article used policy reports and Ministerial correspondence to discuss and elucidate the role of budget impact and its relationship with cost-effectiveness in reimbursement decisions in the Netherlands. The results indicate that CEAs and BIAs are both considered important for informing these decisions. While the requirements regarding CEAs-and application of the associated decision rule-are consistent across the different stages, the same does not hold for BIAs. Importantly, the definition of and evidence on budget impact differs between stages. Some important aspects (e.g. substitution and saving effects) typically are considered in the assessment and appraisal stages but are seemingly not considered in price negotiations and the final reimbursement decision. Further research is warranted to better understand why BIAs are not aligned with CEAs (e.g. in terms of underlying assumptions), vary in form and importance between stages, and do not have a clear relationship with the results of CEAs in the decision-making framework. Improving the understanding of the circumstances under which decision-makers attach a relatively larger or smaller weight to (different aspects of) budget impact may contribute to increasing the transparency, consistency, and optimality of reimbursement decisions in the Netherlands.