On discount rates for economic evaluations in global health

被引:172
作者
Haacker, Markus [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Hallett, Timothy B. [4 ]
Atun, Rifat [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Harvard TH Chan Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Global Hlth & Populat, 677 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] UCL, Fac Populat Hlth Sci, Ctr Global Hlth Econ, 30 Guilford St, London WC1N 1EH, England
[3] Ctr Global Dev, 2055 L St NW, Washington, DC 20036 USA
[4] St Marys Hosp, Imperial Coll London, Ctr Global Infect Dis Anal, MRC,Sch Publ Hlth, Norfolk Pl, London W2 1PG, England
[5] Harvard Univ, Harvard Med Sch, Dept Global Hlth & Social Med, 641 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115 USA
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Discount rates; global health; cost-effectiveness analysis; benefit-cost analysis; economic growth; low-income countries; middle-income countries; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; RECOMMENDATIONS; BENEFIT; PANEL;
D O I
10.1093/heapol/czz127
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Choices on discount rates have important implications for the outcomes of economic evaluations of health interventions and policies. In global health, such evaluations typically apply a discount rate of 3% for health outcomes and costs, mirroring guidance developed for high-income countries, notably the USA. The article investigates the suitability of these guidelines for global health [i.e. with a focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)] and seeks to identify best practice. Our analysis builds on an overview of the academic literature on discounting in health evaluations, existing academic or government-related guidelines on discounting, a review on discount rates applied in economic evaluations in global health, and cross-country macroeconomic data. The social discount rate generally applied in global health of 3% annually is inconsistent with rates of economic growth experienced outside the most advanced economies. For low- and lower-middle-income countries, a discount rate of at least 5% is more appropriate, and one around 4% for upper-middle-income countries. Alternative approaches-e.g. motivated by the returns to alternative investments or by the cost of financing-could usefully be applied, dependent on policy context. The current practise could lead to systematic bias towards over-valuing the future costs and health benefits of interventions. For health economic evaluations in global health, guidelines on discounting need to be adapted to take account of the different economic contexts of LMICs.
引用
收藏
页码:107 / 114
页数:8
相关论文
共 42 条
[31]  
Nordhaus WD, 2008, BE J MACROECON, V8
[32]  
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), 2011, REG IMP AN PRIM
[33]  
Parsonage M, 1992, Health Econ, V1, P71, DOI 10.1002/hec.4730010110
[34]  
Robinson LA, 2019, REF CAS GUID BEN COS
[35]   Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Global Benefit-Cost Analysis [J].
Robinson, Lisa A. ;
Hammitt, James K. ;
O'Keeffe, Lucy .
JOURNAL OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS, 2019, 10 :15-50
[36]   Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine [J].
Sanders, Gillian D. ;
Neumann, Peter J. ;
Basu, Anirban ;
Brock, Dan W. ;
Feeny, David ;
Krahn, Murray ;
Kuntz, Karen M. ;
Meltzer, David O. ;
Owens, Douglas K. ;
Prosser, Lisa A. ;
Salomon, Joshua A. ;
Sculpher, Mark J. ;
Trikalinos, Thomas A. ;
Russell, Louise B. ;
Siegel, Joanna E. ;
Ganiats, Theodore G. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2016, 316 (10) :1093-1103
[37]  
Van Hout BA, 1998, HEALTH ECON, V7, P581, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(1998110)7:7<581::AID-HEC380>3.0.CO
[38]  
2-U
[39]   Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine [J].
Weinstein, MC ;
Siegel, JE ;
Gold, MR ;
Kamlet, MS ;
Russell, LB .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (15) :1253-1258
[40]   FOUNDATIONS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL PRACTICES [J].
WEINSTEIN, MC ;
STASON, WB .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1977, 296 (13) :716-721