A comprehensive review of official discount rates in guidelines of health economic evaluations over time: the trends and roots.

The European Journal of Health Economics Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-03-02 DOI:10.1007/s10198-022-01445-x
Elahe Khorasani, Majid Davari, Abbas Kebriaeezadeh, Farshad Fatemi, Ali Akbari Sari, Vida Varahrami
{"title":"A comprehensive review of official discount rates in guidelines of health economic evaluations over time: the trends and roots.","authors":"Elahe Khorasani, Majid Davari, Abbas Kebriaeezadeh, Farshad Fatemi, Ali Akbari Sari, Vida Varahrami","doi":"10.1007/s10198-022-01445-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The question of discounting in health economics is anything but settled, so much so that a section of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidelines is devoted to it.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to review the trend of the value of the official discount rates (DRs) of costs and health outcomes and their roots worldwide.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four methods were combined to identify official DRs over time globally. These methods included a systematic review of the HTA/pharmacoeconomic/health economic evaluation guidelines, a review of methodological documents or guidelines accessible on the websites of HTA organizations, and two separated reviews of the websites of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the Guide to Health Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our systematic search eventually yielded 339 documents from the literature, 35 links from the website of the HTA organizations, 51 documents from the website of the ISPOR, and 29 documents from the website of the GEAR. These documents referred to 48 countries over 30 years and 43 transnational guidelines over 43 years. DRs of 3% and 5% had the most frequent value. Among them, 38 countries always used an equal DR of costs and health outcomes. We categorized the rationales for selecting DRs into eight groups for the national documents and six groups for the transnational documents.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The comparability approach was the most frequent rationale for choosing the DR in national and transnational guidelines. The value of DR of costs and health outcomes ranged from zero to 10% over the years, but the most common values were 3% and 5%, mainly arising from the comparability approach chosen. Several transnational guidelines have suggested a specific DR without taking into account countries' economic conditions. It is useful to establish a specific guideline for calculating and updating the DR of the health sector in each country.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"18 1","pages":"1577-1590"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01445-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The question of discounting in health economics is anything but settled, so much so that a section of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidelines is devoted to it.

Objective: This study aimed to review the trend of the value of the official discount rates (DRs) of costs and health outcomes and their roots worldwide.

Methods: Four methods were combined to identify official DRs over time globally. These methods included a systematic review of the HTA/pharmacoeconomic/health economic evaluation guidelines, a review of methodological documents or guidelines accessible on the websites of HTA organizations, and two separated reviews of the websites of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the Guide to Health Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR).

Results: Our systematic search eventually yielded 339 documents from the literature, 35 links from the website of the HTA organizations, 51 documents from the website of the ISPOR, and 29 documents from the website of the GEAR. These documents referred to 48 countries over 30 years and 43 transnational guidelines over 43 years. DRs of 3% and 5% had the most frequent value. Among them, 38 countries always used an equal DR of costs and health outcomes. We categorized the rationales for selecting DRs into eight groups for the national documents and six groups for the transnational documents.

Conclusion: The comparability approach was the most frequent rationale for choosing the DR in national and transnational guidelines. The value of DR of costs and health outcomes ranged from zero to 10% over the years, but the most common values were 3% and 5%, mainly arising from the comparability approach chosen. Several transnational guidelines have suggested a specific DR without taking into account countries' economic conditions. It is useful to establish a specific guideline for calculating and updating the DR of the health sector in each country.

长期以来卫生经济评价准则官方贴现率的全面审查:趋势和根源。
背景:卫生经济学中的贴现问题还没有解决,以至于卫生技术评估(HTA)指南中有一节专门讨论了这个问题。目的:本研究旨在回顾成本和健康结果的官方贴现率(dr)值的趋势及其根源。方法:四种方法相结合,以确定全球官方dr随时间的变化。这些方法包括对HTA/药物经济学/卫生经济学评价指南进行系统审查,对HTA组织网站上可访问的方法学文件或指南进行审查,并对国际药物经济学与结果研究学会(ISPOR)和卫生经济学分析与研究指南(GEAR)的网站进行两次单独审查。结果:系统检索最终获得文献339篇,HTA组织网站链接35篇,ISPOR网站链接51篇,GEAR网站链接29篇。这些文件涉及30年来48个国家和43年来43项跨国准则。3%和5%的dr是最常见的值。其中,38个国家始终使用成本和卫生结果均等的DR。我们将选择dr的理由分为8组(针对国内文件)和6组(针对跨国文件)。结论:可比性方法是在国家和跨国指南中选择DR的最常见的理由。多年来,成本和健康结果的DR值从0到10%不等,但最常见的值是3%和5%,主要是由于选择了可比性方法。一些跨国指导方针在没有考虑各国经济状况的情况下提出了具体的发展目标。为计算和更新每个国家卫生部门的DR制定具体准则是有益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书