1 / 14

Stephen T. Parente, Ph.D. Carlson School of Management, Department of Finance =

University of Minnesota Medical Technology Evaluation and Market Research Course: MILI/PUBH 6589 Spring Semester, 2012. Stephen T. Parente, Ph.D. Carlson School of Management, Department of Finance =. Lecture Overview. Cost / Benefit Review Discounting Uncertainty & Risk

rio
Download Presentation

Stephen T. Parente, Ph.D. Carlson School of Management, Department of Finance =

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. University of MinnesotaMedical Technology Evaluation and Market Research Course: MILI/PUBH 6589Spring Semester, 2012 Stephen T. Parente, Ph.D. Carlson School of Management, Department of Finance =

  2. Lecture Overview • Cost / Benefit Review • Discounting • Uncertainty & Risk • Monte Carlo Analysis • SQL Server

  3. Review of Cost/Benefit Analysis • CE Ratio = Change in Costs / Change in QALYs. • To calculate changes in costs measure the differences in accumulated costs associated with treatment • To calculate QALYs—compare patient outcomes. • Importance of Time and Dynamics

  4. Discounting • The impact of most medical technologies stretches over time. • The future is “worth less” than the present. • The key question is how much less?

  5. Whose discount rate? • Individuals? • Corporations? • Governments? • Social Planner?

  6. How much does it matter? • Sometimes it is important, sometimes not. Yes for disease screenings and many preventions, no for influenza vaccine. • Important if there are long time frames and if the intervention is marginally CE. • Suppose an intervention increases HRQL by .2 for 10 years. Assume QALYs = $100,000. • Annual discount rates and PDV of QALYs: • 0% — $200,000 • 3% — $175,722 • 5% — $162,156 • 10% — $135,180

  7. Discounting Costs • Two strategies for picking discount rates • Use the market (e.g. long-term bonds) • Use a political process. • Advantage of using the market is that there is a theoretical justification for doing so. • However, market based discount rates may not reflect the type of transactions that are relevant for health care.

  8. Discounting QALYs • Some controversy about how (and if) to discount QALYs • Is a future life year worth less than a contemporaneous one? • The prevailing practice is to use the same discount rate for costs as one uses for health consequences. • If discounts rates between costs and health benefits are different then either you want to delay interventions or you want to ‘over implement.’ • Want ‘Horizontal Equity’: (i.e., assuming equal healthcare access to those who are the same in a relevant respect (such as having the same 'need').

  9. Issues? • What about inflation? • Analysis should be conducted in ‘real’ terms. • What about uncertainty? • Use ‘certainty equivalence’ in the analysis: (e.g., The amount of payoff (e.g. money or utility) that an agent would have to receive to be indifferent between that payoff and a given gamble is called that gamble's 'certainty equivalent'. For a risk averse agent (as most are assumed to be) the certainty equivalent is less than the expected value of the gamble because the agent prefers to reduce uncertainty.) • Assume risk neutrality to address certainty equivalence • Should we use a constant discount rate? • Although, individuals display ‘time-inconsistency’, it is probably better to use a constant ‘rational’ discount rate. • Keep valuations and discounting separate!

  10. Which interest rate? • There are many interest rates out there, which one, if any, is the right one? • Captures the rate at which society is willing to trade off current for future consumption. • Many interest rates contain a risk-premium/inflation premium.

  11. Which Interest Rate? • Most CE analysis use 5%. • Empirical literature suggests a somewhat lower rate. • Lind (1982) – 2%; • Lesser and Zerbe (1994) 2.5-5% • UK NHS 6% • World Bank 3% • CDC 5% • Bottom line: Use 3% to 5% • Sensitivity Analysis: 0% to 7%

  12. Uncertainty and Risk • There are several sources of uncertainty in CE analysis. • Statistical Uncertainty • Randomness in health & cost outcomes • Analyzing the CE values for alternative parameter values is called Sensitivity Analysis.

  13. Statistical Uncertainty • Parameter Uncertainty • Intervention reduces chance of heart attack by 12% with 5% error. • Cost of intervention is $200 with a standard error of $40. • One-way sensitivity analysis changes one variable at a time. • Multi-way changes many at a time—Likely need to do Monte Carlo analysis.

  14. Monte Carlo Analysis • Computer simulation methodology to examine the impact of uncertainty. • Use a random number generator. • The parameters of interest in CE analysis will have a given distribution, usually Normal, with a mean and variance. • Each iteration, take a draw from the distribution of parameters. • Calculate the CE ratio given the draw and keep track of it. • The distribution of the CE ratios from all of the iterations is the distribution of the CE ratio

More Related