LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Smith, D.H.; Gravelle, H. (2001)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: health care economics and organizations
Objectives: Discounting of costs in health-related economic evaluation is generally regarded as uncontroversial, but there is disagreement about discounting health benefits. We sought to explore the current recommendations and practice in health economic evaluations with regard to discounting of costs and benefits. Methods: Recommendations for best practice on discounting for health effects as set out by government agencies, regulatory bodies, learned journals, and leading health economics texts were surveyed. A review of a sample of primary literature on health economic evaluations was undertaken to ascertain the actual current practice on discounting health effects and costs. Results: All of the official sources recommended a positive discount rate for both health effects and costs, and most recommended a specific rate (range, 1% to 8%). The most frequently specified rates were 3% and 5%. A total of 147 studies were reviewed; most of these used a discount rate for health of either 0% (n = 50) or 5% (n = 67). Over 90% of studies used the same discount rate for both health and cost. While 28% used a zero rate for both health and cost, in 64% a nonzero rate was used for both. Studies where the health measure was in natural clinical units (direct) were significantly more likely to have a zero discount rate. Conclusion: The finding that 28% of studies did not discount costs or benefits is surprising and concerning. A lower likelihood of discounting for benefits when they are in natural units may indicate confusion regarding the rationale for discounting health effects.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Alban A, Keiding H, Sogaard J. Report on guidelines for socioeconomic analyses of pharmaceuticals. Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Health; 1998.
    • 2. Assessing the effectiveness of disease and injury programs: Costs and consequences. MMWR. 1995;44:1-10.
    • 3. Belgian Society of Pharmacoepidemiology. A proposal for methodological guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals, Belgium. Brussels: Belgian Society of Pharmacoepidemiology (BESPE); 1995.
    • 4. Canadian Coodinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 2nd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Center for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1997.
    • 5. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Making cost-effectiveness information accessible: The NHS Economic Evaluation Database Project. York: University of York; 1996.
    • 6. College Des Economistes De La Sante. Guidelines and recommendations for French pharmacoeconomic studies; 1997.
    • 7. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submission to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1995.
    • 8. da Silva E, Pinto C, Sampaio C, et al. Orientacoes metodologicas para estudos de avaliacao economica de medicamentos. Infarmed; 1998.
    • 9. Department of Health. Policy appraisal and health. London: Department of Health; 1995.
    • 10. Drummond M, Jefferson T. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1996;313:275.
    • 11. Drummond MF, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
    • 12. Garattini L, Grilli R, Scopelliti D, Mantovani L. A proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomics. PharmacoEconomics. 1995;7:1-6.
    • 13. Gold M, Siegel J, Russel L, Weinstein M. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
    • 14. HM Treasury Great Britain. Economic appraisal in central government: A technical guide for government departments. London: HMSO Publications; 1991.
    • 15. Homedes N. The disability adjusted life year (DALY) definition, measurement and potential use. New York: The World Bank, Human Capital Development and Operations Policy; 1995.
    • 16. Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Wright JC. Are methods for estimating QALYs in cost-effectiveness analyses improving? Med Decis Making. 1997;17:402-408.
    • 17. Parsonage M, Neuburger H. Discounting and health benefits. Health Econ. 1992;1:71-76.
    • 18. Smith D, Gravelle H. Discounting in health economics: A review of current practice. CHE Technical Paper Series. 2000;19. Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/tech.htm.
    • 19. Viscusi K. Discounting health effects for medical decisions. In: Valuing Health Care, F. Sloan ed. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge; 1996.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article