Search results
Of the 29 (out of 32) sets of HTA guidance recommending a single, annual cost discount rate, 2 recommend values below 3%, 11 recommend a rate of 3%, 9 recommend rates exceeding 3% but less than 5%, and 7 recommend a rate of 5%. The distribution for the recommended discount rates for health effects is nearly identical.
- Introduction
- Methods
- Findings
- Discussion
- Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
The article addresses good practice on discounting in global health, i.e. in health economic evaluations with a focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It takes as its point of departure discussions on the practice and literature on the use of discounting in evaluative and modelling studies among an epidemiologist, a health systems scien...
Our analysis is designed to examine standard practice on discounting, as ‘guided by theory and data’ (Weinstein et al., 1996), in the sphere of global health. With regards to the standard practice, we draw on two sources. First, we review available guidance on health economic evaluations, including the recommendations of the Panels on Cost-Effectiv...
The influential Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (Neumann et al., 2016; Sanders et al., 2016), with a focus on the USA, recommends a discount rate of 3% for both costs and health outcomes, unchanged from the recommendations of the First Panel (Gold et al., 1996), ‘given available data on real economic growth and correspondi...
A discount rate is an essential component of economic evaluations of health policy. We find, however, that the use of a discount rate of 3% as a default in global health is out of line with the economic reality of LMICs, where a discount rate of at least 5% (or 4% for upper-middle-income countries) is generally more appropriate, in light of higher ...
We find that the social discount rate generally applied in global health of 3% annually is inconsistent with rates of economic growth experienced outside the most advance economies. For low- and lower-middle-income countries, a discount rate of at least 5% would be appropriate instead (and around 4% for upper-middle-income countries). Large variati...
T.B.H. acknowledges joint Centre funding from the UK Medical Research Council and Department for International Development (MR/R015600/1). No funding was received specifically for this work. Conflict of interest statement. None declared. Ethical approval.No ethical approval was required for this study.
- Markus Haacker, Markus Haacker, Timothy B Hallett, Rifat Atun
- 2019
Jul 20, 2004 · Calculations for discounting are straightforward: for each year (n) in the future the value of costs or benefits is multiplied by (1/(1 + D) n) where D is the discount rate . Higher discount rates or longer delays produce lower net present value. A constant discount rate produces values that decline exponentially with time.
- Johan L. Severens, Richard J. Milne
- 2004
May 1, 2024 · Of the 29 (out of 32) sets of HTA guidance recommending a single, annual cost discount rate, 2 recommend values below 3%, 11 recommend a rate of 3%, 9 recommend rates exceeding 3% but less than 5%, and 7 recommend a rate of 5%. The distribution for the recommended discount rates for health effects is nearly identical.
benefits over five years are $500, outweighing the costs of $450. The conclusion. would be that there is a net-benefit to society from this program.Discount. g the benefits decreases the total benefits in today’s dollars. At a 5% discount rate, the program still has a small positive benefit (of $5), but, if the disco.
- 504KB
- 8
3 and 10%. For a time horizon >30 years, the discount rate shall be decreased as the time period increases. 31–75 years (5.33%) and 76+ years (3.66%) Equal: Discount rates for sensitivity analysis was selected to allow benchmarking with international practice and with the official social discount rate (10%) High-income countries: Poland
People also ask
What is the discount rate on health effects?
Should health benefits be discounted at a lower rate than costs?
Does the discounting rate affect the value of Health?
Is 3% a good discount rate for Health Economics?
How does discounting affect net present value?
What happens if a discount rate is higher?
Oct 10, 1999 · For instance, an evaluation of two view mammography for breast screening showed an undiscounted marginal cost per life year of £1200. 7 However, discounting the life years (at 6%) increased the marginal cost per life year by 74%, to £2092. If future health benefits are not discounted this implies that health gains achieved this year and those ...
