Currently, much debate still surrounds the discounting of health effects. Most general consensus statements have argued for the same discount rate for health and money; however, this practice has been questioned by several authors. The choice of discount rate can have varying effects on interventions, depending on the disease area. In this paper, we review two major current controversies around discounting: the use of similar or differential discount rates for health and money; and the validity of the underlying discounting model (time preference, constant discounting and the use of aggregated utilities for health effects).
Various arguments justify a different rate of discounting for health effects than for money. Empirical evidence questions the validity of the constant discounting model, pointing out that time preference is not constant and should not be applied as such. Also, the validity of the aggregated utility model for health might be questioned, implying that a life cannot simply be cut into life years as single entities that are discounted back to the net present value. Such debates have led to varying methodologies being employed in economic evaluations, causing difficulties in their interpretation. Although there is sufficient evidence to question the use of similar discount rates for health and money, currently there is not enough information on the nature of the different processes that constitute discounting to reach a solid conclusion on the use of a different method.
The lack of consensus on one of the most important topics in pharmacoeconomics makes the case for a more restricted use of cost-effectiveness or costutility ratios than as the most important singular outcome of pharmacoeconomic studies. Instead, results should be presented in a non-aggregated manner that enables policy makers to value health gains according to timing and to which subpopulation they are accrued in.
Discount Rate Marginal Utility Time Preference Health Gain Market Rate
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Lieven Annemans and Maarten Postma were supported by an unrestricted grant from GlaxoSmithKline, Germany. Also, both authors have various consultancies and projects for pharmaceutical industries, none of which, however, provides direct conflicts of interest with regard to this work.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
Lazaro A. Theoretical arguments for the discounting of health consequences; where do we go from here? Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 943–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen BJ. Discounting in cost-utility analysis of healthcare interventions: reassessing current practice. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (2): 75–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beutels P, Edmunds WJ, Antonanzas F, et al. Economic evaluation of vaccination programmes: a consensus statement focusing on viral hepatitis. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (1): 1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipscomb J, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW. Time preference. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996: 214–46Google Scholar
van Hour BA. Discounting costs and effects: a reconsideration. Health Econ 1998 Nov; 7 (7): 581–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravelle H, Smith DH. Discounting for health effects in costbenefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2001; 10: 587–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
UK Department of Health. Policy appraisal and health. London: Department of Health, 1995Google Scholar
Smith DH, Gravelle H. The practice of discounting in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001; 17: 236–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struijs IN, de Wit GA, Kretzschmar MEE, et al. Kosten en effecten van algemene vaccinatie tegen hepatitis B. Infectieziekten Bulletin 2000; 11: 109–14Google Scholar
Bos JM, Rdmke HC, Welte R, et al. Health economics of a hexavalent meningococcal outer-membrane vesicle vaccine in children: potential impact of introduction in the Dutch vaccination programme. Vaccine 2001; 20: 202–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postma MJ, Heijnen MLA, Jager JC. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pneumococcal vaccination for elderly individuals in The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (2): 215–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postma MJ, Bos JM, van Gennep M, et al. Economic evaluation of influenza vaccination: assessment for The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16 Suppl. 1: 33–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmunds WJ, Brisson M, Melegaro A, et al. The potential costeffectiveness of acellular pertussis booster vaccination in England and Wales. Vaccine 2002; 20: 1316–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skull SA, Butler JR. Meningococcal vaccination for adolescents? An economic evaluation in Victoria. J Paediatr Child Health 2001; 37: S28–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almbrand B, Johannesson M, Sjostrand B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of intense insulin treatment after acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus: results from the DIGAMI study. Eur Heart J 2000; 21: 733–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caro JJ, Klittich WS, Raggio G, et al. Economic assessment of troglitazone as an adjunct to sulfonylurea therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Clin Ther 2000; 22: 116–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
CDC Diabetes Cost-Effectiveness Study Group. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The cost-effectiveness of screening for type-2 diabetes. JAMA 1998; 280 (20): 1757–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM: II. Analysis of the health benefits and costeffectiveness of treating NIDDM with the goal of normoglycemia. Diabetes Care 1997; 20 (5): 735–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamotte M, Annemans L, Lefever A, et al. A health economic model to assess the long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in obese type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2002; 25 (2): 303–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messori A, Bonistalli L, Costantini M, et al. Cost effectiveness of adjuvant intraportal chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 1996; 23 (4): 269–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard SM, Holmes M, Price C, et al. Hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Surg 2000; 232 (6: 763–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafuma A, Dreno B, Delaunay M, et al. French Cooperative Group on Melanoma. Economic analysis of adjuvant therapy with interferon alpha-2a in stage II malignant melanoma. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37 (3): 369–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messori A, Becagli P, Trippoli S, et al. A retrospective costeffectiveness analysis of interferon as adjuvant therapy in high-risk resected cutaneous melanoma. Eur J Cancer 1997; 33 (9): 1373–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerlikowske K, Salzmann P, Phillips KA, et al. Continuing screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years: impact on life expectancy and cost-effectiveness. JAMA 1999; 282 (22): 2156–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norum J. Adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil (CMF) in breast cancer: is it cost-effective? Acta Oncol 2000; 39 (1): 33–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu S. The effects of health events on the economic status of married couples. J Hum Resour 2003; 38: 219–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsky RB, Juster FT, Kimball MS, et al. Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the health and retirement study. Q J Econ 1997; 112: 537–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannesson M. On the discounting of gained life-years in costeffectiveness analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8: 359–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauskopf JA, Paul JE, Grant DM, et al. The role of costconsequence analysis in healthcare decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (3): 277–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar