Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Experiment Videos

Discounting life-years: whither time preference?

D Gyrd-Hansen1, J Søgaard

  • 1Center for Health and Social Policy, Odense University, Denmark. d.hansen@chsmed.ou.dk

Health Economics
|July 4, 1998
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Prioritization, Incentives, and Resource Use for Sustainable Dentistry: The EU PRUDENT Project.

JDR clinical and translational research·2023
Same author

Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women.

Preventive medicine reports·2021
Same author

Danish heart patients' participation in and experience with rehabilitation.

Scandinavian journal of public health·2012
Same author

Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice?

Health economics·2012
Same author

Responsiveness of observer rating scales by analysis of number of days until improvement in patients with major depression.

European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists·2009
Same author

Quality of life in rhinoconjunctivitis assessed with generic and disease-specific questionnaires.

Allergy·2008
Same journal

Healthcare Costs Following Medical Gender-Affirmation: Evidence From Whole-of-Population Australian Administrative Data.

Health economics·2026
Same journal

Lead in Drinking Water and Child Health: Evidence From Jackson, Mississippi.

Health economics·2026
Same journal

Health on the Move: The Impact of Poverty Alleviation Relocation on Healthcare Utilization in China.

Health economics·2026
Same journal

The Effects of Compulsory Licensing: A Case Study of HIV Drugs.

Health economics·2026
Same journal

Beyond Tobacco Prevention: The Effects of Tobacco 21 Laws on Young Adults' Body Weight.

Health economics·2026
Same journal

Assessing the Estimands and Estimates of Hospitalization Rates in Health Economics and Clinical Medicine.

Health economics·2026
See all related articles
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

This study proposes a novel economic evaluation framework incorporating both social and individual time preferences for life-saving interventions. It addresses challenges like double discounting and equity paradoxes in health economics.

Area of Science:

  • Health Economics
  • Decision Analysis
  • Public Health Policy

Background:

  • Economic evaluations of life-saving interventions often struggle to balance social and individual time preferences.
  • Existing methods may lead to issues like double discounting of Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and equity paradoxes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose a method for incorporating both social and individual time preferences into economic evaluations of life-saving therapies.
  • To resolve potential conflicts between intertemporal and interpersonal equity in health economic assessments.

Main Methods:

  • The paper outlines a framework for economic evaluation that distinguishes between discounting for social choices and private consumption.
  • It suggests using social intertemporal preferences for overall societal choices and individual/social interpersonal preferences for valuing extended life or quality of life.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Demonstrates the feasibility of integrating distinct time preference types within a single economic evaluation model.
  • This approach can accommodate factors like quantity, risk, and uncertainty often overlooked in current evaluations.

Conclusions:

  • The proposed framework offers a more comprehensive approach to economic evaluations for life-saving interventions.
  • It provides a potential solution to complex issues in health economics, enhancing the accuracy and equity of resource allocation decisions.