Monica Ortendahl1, James F Fries. 1. Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, 1000 Welch Road, Suite 203, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. monicaortendahl@hotmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review intertemporal choices, involving decisions with a trade-off between something now and something later. These choices are common in health both at an individual and societal level. METHODS: The present value of an outcome, for example, the amount of money or the health outcomes in various aspects, is equivalent to the value of a future outcome discounted with the delay of time. The concept of diminishing value over time is positive discounting. Economic forecasts generally use discount rates in which the value of a future dollar is less than the value of a present dollar, and where the discount rates are similar for the individual investor and society. The value of future health is commonly thought of as similar to the value of future money. Yet, the individual may rationally choose a discount rate that is exceedingly low or even negative. This paradox is particularly relevant when considering primary and secondary prevention, where initial and continuing costs may precede beneficent outcomes by decades, making discount rate selections the dominant factor in determining decisions. CONCLUSION: We suggest that the societal perspective should also recognize that discount rates for health outcomes are largely irrelevant and that even negative discount rates have crucial relevance.
OBJECTIVES: To review intertemporal choices, involving decisions with a trade-off between something now and something later. These choices are common in health both at an individual and societal level. METHODS: The present value of an outcome, for example, the amount of money or the health outcomes in various aspects, is equivalent to the value of a future outcome discounted with the delay of time. The concept of diminishing value over time is positive discounting. Economic forecasts generally use discount rates in which the value of a future dollar is less than the value of a present dollar, and where the discount rates are similar for the individual investor and society. The value of future health is commonly thought of as similar to the value of future money. Yet, the individual may rationally choose a discount rate that is exceedingly low or even negative. This paradox is particularly relevant when considering primary and secondary prevention, where initial and continuing costs may precede beneficent outcomes by decades, making discount rate selections the dominant factor in determining decisions. CONCLUSION: We suggest that the societal perspective should also recognize that discount rates for health outcomes are largely irrelevant and that even negative discount rates have crucial relevance.