Background: Person-Centered Care (PCC) has been associated with greater patient empowerment and economic benefits. However, results from individual cost-effectiveness studies regarding PCC are inconclusive, partially due to non-standardization in defining PCC along with only certain age groups or ailments being reported. Objective: To explore the current evidence on the costs and associated health outcomes of PCC, by populations studied and settings of care. Method: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and grey literature were systematically searched using free text and MeSH terms related to PCC, cost, and benefit. Only papers defining PCC as partnership were included, and the degree of deviation from the University of Gothenburg center for person-centered care (GPCC) model was analyzed. Selection of studies and extraction of data were conducted by two independent reviewers. Data was then synthesized and categorized as PCC being either i) cost-effective, ii) cost-saving with negative health outcomes, iii) more costly but effective, or iv) more costly and less effective than usual care. Results: Of the 2,766 papers identified, only 32 met the inclusion criteria. All included studies reflected populations from developed countries and were predominantly random control trials or quasi-experimental designs. Majority of these studies (63%) had time horizons of one year or less and reported interventions for individuals over the age of 60 with long term and chronic conditions. Most studies found PCC to be more cost-effective, cost-saving, or potentially cost-saving (78%, n=25) than care as usual. Conclusion: This is the first study to systematically explore and analyze costs and benefits of PCC compared to usual care or other models of PCC using a well-established definition of PCC. This study not only confirms that PCC is cost-effective overall, it also identifies potential areas of bias in both the population explored and the items being reported. Prospero Registration #: CRD42022313047