The practice of discounting in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions

Article English OPEN
Smith, D.H. ; Gravelle, H. (2001)
  • Subject:
    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.
  • References (19)
    19 references, page 1 of 2

    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.

  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    White Rose Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 384
Share - Bookmark