Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK.
Health Econ. 2011 Jan;20(1):2-15. doi: 10.1002/hec.1612. Epub 2010 May 12.
Discounting costs and health benefits in cost-effectiveness analysis has been the subject of recent debate - some authors suggesting a common rate for both and others suggesting a lower rate for health. We show how these views turn on key judgments of fact and value: on whether the social objective is to maximise discounted health outcomes or the present consumption value of health; on whether the budget for health care is fixed; on the expected growth in the cost-effectiveness threshold; and on the expected growth in the consumption value of health. We demonstrate that if the budget for health care is fixed and decisions are based on incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounting costs and health gains at the same rate is correct only if the threshold remains constant. Expecting growth in the consumption value of health does not itself justify differential rates but implies a lower rate for both. However, whether one believes that the objective should be the maximisation of the present value of health or the present consumption value of health, adopting the social time preference rate for consumption as the discount rate for costs and health gains is valid only under strong and implausible assumptions about values and facts.
在成本效益分析中对成本和健康效益进行贴现一直是最近争论的主题——一些作者建议对两者使用相同的贴现率,而另一些作者则建议对健康使用较低的贴现率。我们展示了这些观点如何取决于关键的事实和价值判断:社会目标是最大化贴现后的健康结果还是健康的当前消费价值;医疗保健预算是否固定;成本效益阈值的预期增长;以及健康消费价值的预期增长。我们证明,如果医疗保健预算固定,并且决策基于增量成本效益比(ICER),那么只有在阈值保持不变的情况下,对成本和健康收益进行相同的贴现率才是正确的。对健康消费价值的增长的预期本身并不能证明存在差异,反而意味着对两者都应采用较低的贴现率。然而,无论人们认为目标应该是最大化健康的现值还是健康的当前消费价值,只有在对价值和事实做出强烈且不太可能的假设的情况下,才可以采用社会消费时间偏好率作为成本和健康收益的贴现率。