Reconstructive surgery of the head and neck region has undergone tremendous advancement over the past three decades, and the success rate of free tissue transfers has risen to greater than 95%. It must always be considered that not all patients are ideal candidates for free flap reconstruction, and also that not every defect strictly requires a free flap transfer to achieve good functional results. At our institution, free flap reconstruction is first choice, although we use pedicled alternative flaps for most weak patients suffering from severe comorbidities, and for pretreated patients presenting a second primary or a recurrent cancer. From July 2006 to May 2010, 54 consecutive patients underwent soft tissue reconstruction of oral cavity and oropharyngeal defects. We divided the cohort in three groups: Group 1 (G1): 16 patients in good general conditions that received free radial forearm flap reconstruction; Group 2 (G2): 18 high-risk patients that received a reconstruction with infrahyoid flap; Group 3 (G3): 20 patients that received temporal flap (10 cases) or pectoral flap (10 cases) reconstruction. We must highlight that pedicled alternative flaps were used in elderly, unfavourable and weak patients, where usually the medical costs tend to rise rather than decrease. We compared the healthcare costs of the three groups, calculating real costs in each group from review of medical records and operating room registers, and calculating the corresponding DRG system reimbursement. For real costs, we found a statistically significant difference among groups: in G1 the average total cost per patient was € 22,924, in G2 it was € 18,037 and in G3 was € 19,872 (p = 0.043). The amount of the refund, based on the DRG system, was € 7,650 per patient, independently of the type of surgery. Our analysis shows that the use of alternative non-microvascular techniques, in high-risk patients, is functionally and oncologically sound, and can even produce a cost savings. In particular, the infrahyoid flap (G2) ensures excellent functional results, accompanied by the best economic savings in the worst group of patients. Our data reflect a large disconnection between the DRG system and actual treatment costs.