Systematic Review to Update ‘Value of a Statistical Life’ Estimates for Australia

Ananthapavan, Jaithri; Moodie, Marj; Milat, Andrew; Carter, Rob

doi:10.3390/ijerph18116168

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent systematic review was undertaken to update the VSL and VSLY for Australian policy decision-making [ 76 ]. Based on the most contemporary Australian data, the authors recommended a VSL of A$ 7 million and a VSLY of A$ 303,531 (in 2017 values), with additional values for sensitivity analyses [ 76 ]. The value of a QALY used by PBAC in its decision-making is not explicit [ 77 , 78 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Firstly, parameters such as the VSL/VSLY that are key drivers of CBA results [ 86 – 88 ] should be the focus of parameter harmonization efforts. The Framework recommends using results from a recent systematic review [ 76 ]; however, this needs to be deliberated by the departments that currently use varying values. Developing a parameter database that is regularly updated may be an effective way to ensure consistency of parameter values; it may also assist analysts in incorporating intersectoral impacts into CBA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A cost–benefit analysis framework for preventive health interventions to aid decision-making in Australian governments

Ananthapavan

Moodie

Milat

et al. 2021

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Australian governments are increasingly mandating the use of cost–benefit analysis (CBA) to inform the efficient allocation of government resources. CBA is likely to be useful when evaluating preventive health interventions that are often cross-sectoral in nature and require Cabinet approval prior to implementation. This study outlines a CBA framework for the evaluation of preventive health interventions that balances the need for consistency with other agency guidelines whilst adhering to guidelines and conventions for health economic evaluations. Methods We analysed CBA and other evaluation guidance documents published by Australian federal and New South Wales (NSW) government departments. Data extraction compared the recommendations made by different agencies and the impact on the analysis of preventive health interventions. The framework specifies a reference case and sensitivity analyses based on the following considerations: (1) applied economic evaluation theory; (2) consistency between CBA across different government departments; (3) the ease of moving from a CBA to a more conventional cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis framework often used for health interventions; (4) the practicalities of application; and (5) the needs of end users being both Cabinet decision-makers and health policy-makers. Results Nine documents provided CBA or relevant economic evaluation guidance. There were differences in terminology and areas of agreement and disagreement between the guidelines. Disagreement between guidelines involved (1) the community included in the societal perspective; (2) the number of options that should be appraised in ex ante analyses; (3) the appropriate time horizon for interventions with longer economic lives; (4) the theoretical basis and value of the discount rate; (5) parameter values for variables such as the value of a statistical life; and (6) the summary measure for decision-making. Conclusions This paper addresses some of the methodological challenges that have hindered the use of CBA in prevention by outlining a framework that is consistent with treasury department guidelines whilst considering the unique features of prevention policies. The effective use and implementation of a preventive health CBA framework is likely to require considerable investment of time and resources from state and federal government departments of health and treasury but has the potential to improve decision-making related to preventive health policies and programmes.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cost–benefit analysis framework for preventive health interventions to aid decision-making in Australian governments

Ananthapavan

Moodie

Milat

et al. 2021

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the estimated cost-per-death averted in LIC/LMIC varies with estimated IFR and vaccine effectiveness against a given COVID-19 variant, all estimates of cost-per-death averted in our analysis are well below the commonly used estimates for the value of a statistical life (VSL), with accepted estimates ranging from €3.7 million in Sweden to $A7.3 million in Australia. 27 28 Even though cost to avert a death rises at lower COVID-19 IFR, lower vaccine effectiveness, and higher cost per dose, it is a fraction of the US 2022 VSL estimates of US$4.9 million–US$15.9 million. 29…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating deaths averted and cost per life saved by scaling up mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in low-income and lower-middle-income countries in the COVID-19 Omicron variant era: a modelling study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesWhile almost 60% of the world has received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, the global distribution of vaccination has not been equitable. Only 4% of the population of low-income countries (LICs) has received a full primary vaccine series, compared with over 70% of the population of high-income nations.DesignWe used economic and epidemiological models, parameterised with public data on global vaccination and COVID-19 deaths, to estimate the potential benefits of scaling up vaccination programmes in LICs and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) in 2022 in the context of global spread of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV2.SettingLow-income and lower-middle-income nations.Main outcome measuresOutcomes were expressed as number of avertable deaths through vaccination, costs of scale-up and cost per death averted. We conducted sensitivity analyses over a wide range of parameter estimates to account for uncertainty around key inputs.FindingsGlobally, universal vaccination in LIC/LMIC with three doses of an mRNA vaccine would result in an estimated 1.5 million COVID-19 deaths averted with a total estimated cost of US$61 billion and an estimated cost-per-COVID-19 death averted of US$40 800 (sensitivity analysis range: US$7400–US$81 500). Lower estimated infection fatality ratios, higher cost-per-dose and lower vaccine effectiveness or uptake lead to higher cost-per-death averted estimates in the analysis.ConclusionsScaling up COVID-19 global vaccination would avert millions of COVID-19 deaths and represents a reasonable investment in the context of the value of a statistical life. Given the magnitude of expected mortality facing LIC/LMIC without vaccination, this effort should be an urgent priority.

show abstract

“…The use of the VSL for cost‐effectiveness analysis of health‐related programs has been criticized for potential overestimation of cost savings (Le et al, 2021 ; Mihalopoulos et al, 2021 ). However, we conservatively used the lowest value of VSL compared with the median VSL of A$7.3M reported in a recent systematic review to update VSL estimates in Australia (Ananthapavan et al, 2021 ). Furthermore, by testing different assumptions to the value attached to the VSL, as well as using an alternative method for assigning the monetary savings to a suicide prevented, we were able to demonstrate consistent findings regardless of changes to these input parameters.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost‐effectiveness of media reporting guidelines for the prevention of suicide

Flego

Reifels

Mihalopoulos

et al. 2022

Suicide & Life Threat Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Media guidelines for the responsible reporting of suicide are a recognized universal suicide prevention intervention. While implemented in numerous countries, including Australia, little is known about whether they are cost-effective. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of Mindframe, the national initiative implementing media guidelines in Australia. Method:We conducted a modelled economic evaluation (5-year time-horizon) incorporating two types of economic analysis: (i) return-on-investment (ROI) comparing estimated cost savings from the intervention to the total intervention cost, and (ii) cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the net intervention costs to health outcomes: suicide deaths prevented and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We also included uncertainty analyses to propagate parameter uncertainty and sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the model outputs to changes in input parameters and assumptions. Results:The estimated ROI ratio for the main analysis was 94:1

show abstract

Systematic Review to Update ‘Value of a Statistical Life’ Estimates for Australia

Cited by 18 publications

References 45 publications

A cost–benefit analysis framework for preventive health interventions to aid decision-making in Australian governments

A cost–benefit analysis framework for preventive health interventions to aid decision-making in Australian governments

Estimating deaths averted and cost per life saved by scaling up mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in low-income and lower-middle-income countries in the COVID-19 Omicron variant era: a modelling study

Cost‐effectiveness of media reporting guidelines for the prevention of suicide

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About