Literature DB >> 16097841

Societal discounting of health effects in cost-effectiveness analyses: the influence of life expectancy.

Suzanne Polinder1, Willem Jan Meerding, Job van Exel, Werner Brouwer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increasing life expectancy and decreasing marginal valuation of additional QALYs over time may serve as a basis for discounting future health effects from a societal perspective. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that societal time preference for health is related to perceived future life expectancy.
METHODS: A sample of 223 people from the general population prioritised healthcare programmes with differential timing of health benefits and costs from a societal perspective. Furthermore, we asked respondents to estimate future life expectancy.
RESULTS: The relationship between future life expectancy and time preference for health is ambiguous. We observed that people who expected a higher future life expectancy elicited higher discount rates for health effects than those with lower life expectancy growth expectations for all four time periods (5, 10, 20 and 40 years into the future), but the differences were never significant. On average, providing explicit information on growth in life expectancy did significantly alter discount rates in the expected direction but, on an individual level, the results were rather inconsistent. We observed a significantly stronger time preference (i.e. higher discount rates) for health effects than for costs. As commonly observed, discount rates for health and money decreased with time delay following a hyperbolic function.
CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that it is troublesome to elicit societal discount rates empirically, especially rates that are in line with the theoretical arguments on societal discounting. The influence of life expectancy remains ambiguous, but there seems to be at least some positive relationship between growth in life expectancy and discount rates that deserves additional attention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16097841     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200523080-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  22 in total

1.  Negative and zero time preference for health.

Authors:  M M Van Der Pol; J A Cairns
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  The estimation of marginal time preference in a UK-wide sample (TEMPUS) project.

Authors:  J A Cairns; M M van der Pol
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  A fair approach to discounting future effects: taking a societal perspective.

Authors:  W Brouwer; B van Hout; F Rutten
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2000-04

Review 4.  The practice of discounting in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions.

Authors:  D H Smith; H Gravelle
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.188

5.  Using life expectancy to communicate benefits of health care programs in contingent valuation studies.

Authors:  J Morris; J K Hammitt
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Private and social time preferences for health and money: an empirical estimation.

Authors:  A Lazaro; R Barberan; E Rubio
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  The influence of subjective expectations about length and quality of life on time trade-off answers.

Authors:  Floortje van Nooten; Werner Brouwer
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Contingent valuation with an open-ended follow-up question: a test of scope effects.

Authors:  B Kartman; N O Stålhammar; M Johannesson
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1997 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 9.  Saving future lives. A comparison of three discounting models.

Authors:  J A Cairns; M M van der Pol
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1997 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 10.  Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument.

Authors:  A Williams
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1997 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.046

View more
  3 in total

1.  Assessing the burden of injury in six European countries.

Authors:  Suzanne Polinder; Willem Jan Meerding; Saakje Mulder; Eleni Petridou; Ed van Beeck
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 9.408

Review 2.  Cost-effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening and Treatment Methods: Mapping of Systematic Reviews.

Authors:  Hossein Mashhadi Abdolahi; Ali Sarabi Asiabar; Saber Azami-Aghdash; Fatemeh Pournaghi-Azar; Aziz Rezapour
Journal:  Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2018 Jan-Mar

Review 3.  Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and treatment methods: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Farbod Ebadifard Azar; Saber Azami-Aghdash; Fatemeh Pournaghi-Azar; Alireza Mazdaki; Aziz Rezapour; Parvin Ebrahimi; Negar Yousefzadeh
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 2.655

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.