Elahe Khorasani1, Majid Davari2,3, Abbas Kebriaeezadeh1,4, Farshad Fatemi5, Ali Akbari Sari6, Vida Varahrami7. 1. Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Administration, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmaceutical Administration, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. mim.davari@gmail.com. 3. Pharmaceutical Management and Economic Research Center, The Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. mim.davari@gmail.com. 4. Pharmaceutical Management and Economic Research Center, The Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 5. Graduate School of Management and Economics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. 6. Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 7. Department of Economics, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The question of discounting in health economics is anything but settled, so much so that a section of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidelines is devoted to it. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review the trend of the value of the official discount rates (DRs) of costs and health outcomes and their roots worldwide. METHODS: Four methods were combined to identify official DRs over time globally. These methods included a systematic review of the HTA/pharmacoeconomic/health economic evaluation guidelines, a review of methodological documents or guidelines accessible on the websites of HTA organizations, and two separated reviews of the websites of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the Guide to Health Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR). RESULTS: Our systematic search eventually yielded 339 documents from the literature, 35 links from the website of the HTA organizations, 51 documents from the website of the ISPOR, and 29 documents from the website of the GEAR. These documents referred to 48 countries over 30 years and 43 transnational guidelines over 43 years. DRs of 3% and 5% had the most frequent value. Among them, 38 countries always used an equal DR of costs and health outcomes. We categorized the rationales for selecting DRs into eight groups for the national documents and six groups for the transnational documents. CONCLUSION: The comparability approach was the most frequent rationale for choosing the DR in national and transnational guidelines. The value of DR of costs and health outcomes ranged from zero to 10% over the years, but the most common values were 3% and 5%, mainly arising from the comparability approach chosen. Several transnational guidelines have suggested a specific DR without taking into account countries' economic conditions. It is useful to establish a specific guideline for calculating and updating the DR of the health sector in each country.
BACKGROUND: The question of discounting in health economics is anything but settled, so much so that a section of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidelines is devoted to it. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review the trend of the value of the official discount rates (DRs) of costs and health outcomes and their roots worldwide. METHODS: Four methods were combined to identify official DRs over time globally. These methods included a systematic review of the HTA/pharmacoeconomic/health economic evaluation guidelines, a review of methodological documents or guidelines accessible on the websites of HTA organizations, and two separated reviews of the websites of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the Guide to Health Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR). RESULTS: Our systematic search eventually yielded 339 documents from the literature, 35 links from the website of the HTA organizations, 51 documents from the website of the ISPOR, and 29 documents from the website of the GEAR. These documents referred to 48 countries over 30 years and 43 transnational guidelines over 43 years. DRs of 3% and 5% had the most frequent value. Among them, 38 countries always used an equal DR of costs and health outcomes. We categorized the rationales for selecting DRs into eight groups for the national documents and six groups for the transnational documents. CONCLUSION: The comparability approach was the most frequent rationale for choosing the DR in national and transnational guidelines. The value of DR of costs and health outcomes ranged from zero to 10% over the years, but the most common values were 3% and 5%, mainly arising from the comparability approach chosen. Several transnational guidelines have suggested a specific DR without taking into account countries' economic conditions. It is useful to establish a specific guideline for calculating and updating the DR of the health sector in each country.
Authors: Tomas Tesar; Adam Hloska; Martin Wawruch; Lubica Lehocka; Miroslava Snopkova; Lucia Masarykova Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Anthony T Newall; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk; Philipp Lambach; Raymond C W Hutubessy Journal: Influenza Other Respir Viruses Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Alessandra Castelluccia; Pierpaolo Mincarone; Maria Rosaria Tumolo; Saverio Sabina; Riccardo Colella; Antonella Bodini; Francesco Tramacere; Maurizio Portaluri; Carlo Giacomo Leo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 4.614