In this article, I argue that as a theoretical matter, a population's health‐level is best quantified via averagism. Averagism asserts that the health of a population is the average of members’ health‐levels. This model is better because it does not fall prey to a number of objections, including the repugnant conclusion, and because it is not arbitrary. I also argue that as a practical matter, population health‐levels are best quantified via totalism. Totalism asserts that the health of a population is the sum of members’ health‐levels. Totalism is better here because it fits better with cost‐benefit analysis and such an analysis is the best practical way to value healthcare outcomes. The two results are compatible because the theoretical and practical need not always align, whether in general or in the context of population health.