Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T01:31:01.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating the implicit value of statistical life based on public interventions implemented in The Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Adrienne F. G. Goebbels ,
André J. H. A. Ament ,
Annoesjka Novák ,
Christiaan P. W. M. Veraart  and
Johan L. Severens
Adrienne F. G. Goebbels
Affiliation:
Maastricht University
André J. H. A. Ament
Affiliation:
Maastricht University
Annoesjka Novák
Affiliation:
Anovák-Services
Christiaan P. W. M. Veraart
Affiliation:
Roche Netherlands BV
Johan L. Severens
Affiliation:
Maastricht University and University Hospital Maastricht
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: In the Netherlands, allocation decisions have not yet been explicitly based on the Value of Statistical Life. However, when policy makers decide whether or not to implement life saving interventions this trade-off is made implicitly. This study aimed to gain insights into this trade-off, hereafter referred to as Implicit Value of Statistical Life (IVSL), by means of a retrospective investment analysis of life saving interventions implemented in the Netherlands.

Methods: A literature search was conducted to find life saving intervention cases meeting the requirements for IVSL calculation. A final sample of ten cases was included in the study concerning interventions implemented in different societal sectors. For each case, an IVSL estimate was calculated according to a uniform method.

Results: IVSL estimates derived from the intervention cases differed considerably and ranged from €1 to almost €11 million. Differences were most extreme when comparing IVSL estimates concerning interventions implemented in different societal sectors. However, IVSL estimates also varied greatly between interventions in the same sector and even within the same interventions when critical assumptions were altered.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that there are great imbalances between societal investments for preventing a statistical death. This highlights the need for further deliberation about how to improve transparency of policy decisions. An approach ex ante determining the Value of Statistical Life by means of empirical methods and based on societal preferences might circumvent the problems associated with the IVSL and needs further exploration.

Keywords

Value of statistical lifeLife saving interventionsInvestment analysisWillingness to payEconomic evaluation
Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 495 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Alban, S. The ‘precautionary principle’ as a guide for future drug development. Eur J Clin Invest. 2005;35 (Suppl 1):33–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Bellavance, F, Georges, D, Lebeau, M. The value of a statistical life: A meta-analysis with a mixed effects regression model. Working paper 06–12. Montreal: Canada Research Chair in Risk Management; 2006.Google Scholar
3. Bos, JM, Beutels, P, Annemans, L, Postma, MJ. Valuing prevention trough economic evaluation: Some considerations regarding the choice of discount model for health effects with focus on infectious diseases. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:1171–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Brownson, RC, Royer, C, Ewing, R, et al. Researchers and policymakers: Travellers in parallel universes. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30:167–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Card, WI, Mooney, GH. What is the monetary value of human life? BMJ. 1977;2:1627–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, Cuyler, A, et al. Discounting and cost-effectiveness in NICE-stepping back to sort out a confusion. Health Econ. 2006;15:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. CVZ. Richtlijnen voor farmaco-economisch onderzoek. Diemen: CVZ; 2006.Google Scholar
8. CVZ. Farmacotherapeutisch Kompas. http://www.fk.cvz.nl. Accessed 22 May 2007.Google Scholar
9. CVZ. Medicijnkosten. http://www.medicijnkosten.nl. Accessed 28 June 2007.Google Scholar
10. De Blaeij, A. The value of statistical life in road safety: Stated preference methodologies and empirical estimates for the Netherlands. Amsterdam: PhD Thesis, VU University; 2003.Google Scholar
11. De Blaeij, A, Florax, RJGM, Rietveld, P, et al. The value of statistical life in road safety: A meta-analysis. Accid Anal Prev. 2003;35:973–986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Evans, MF, Smith, VK. Do we really understand the age-VSL relationship? Resour Energy Econ. 2006;28:242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Fuchs, VR, Zeckhauser, R. Valuing health: A “priceless” commodity. Am Econ Rev. 1987;77:263–268.Google Scholar
15. Genugten, MLL, MLA, Heijnen, Jager, JC. Scenario analysis of the expected number of hospitalisations and deaths due to pandemic influenza in the Netherlands. Bilthoven: RIVM; 2002.Google Scholar
16. Johansson, P, Kriström, B. Introduction. Resour Energy Econ. 2006;28:193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Langeveld, PMM, Schoon, CC. Kosten-batenanalyse van maatregelen voor vrachtauto's en bedrijven (report no.: R-2004-11). Leidschendam: SWOV; 2004.Google Scholar
18. Mathijssen, J, Petersen, A, Besseling, P, et al. Omgaan met Onzekerheid in Beleid. Den Haag: CPB, MNP & RAND Europe.Google Scholar
19. Miller, TR. Variations between countries in values of statistical life. J Transport Econ Pol. 2000;34:399–416.Google Scholar
20. Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports. Hoogervorst tekent contract levering antivirale middelen. Press report from September 9th 2005. The Hague: Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports.Google Scholar
21. NZA. Tarievenlijst Huisartsenzorg-Bijlage bij tariefbeschikking 5000-1900-07-1. Utrecht: NZA; 2006.Google Scholar
22. Postma, MJ, Novak, A, Scheijbeler, HW, et al. Cost effectiveness of oseltamivir treatment for patients with influenza-like illness who are at increased risk for serious complications of influenza: Illustration for the Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:497–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Rabl, A, Spadaro, JV. Environmental impacts and costs of energy. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1076:516–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Severens, JL, Milne, RJ. Discounting health outcomes in economic evaluation: The ongoing debate. Value Health. 2004;7:397–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Ten Brinke, WMBJ, Bannink, BA. Risico's in bedijkte termen: een thematische evaluatie van het Nederlandse veiligheidsbeleid tegen overstromen (Report no. 500799002). Bilthoven: RIVM; 2004.Google Scholar
26. Van Der Baan, F, Donk, S, Jansen, H, et al. The price of precaution: Measures to reduce the risk of contamination with vCJD via pharmaceutical products. Utrecht: University of Utrecht, Faculty of Geosciences; 2006.Google Scholar
27. Van Kampen, LTB, Schoon, CC. De veiligheid van vrachtauto's: een ongevals- en maatregelanalyse in opdracht van Transport en Logistiek Nederland. Leidschendam: SWOV; 1999.Google Scholar
28. Van Velden, ME, Severens, JL, Novak, A. Economic evaluations of healthcare programmes and decision making: The influence of economic evaluations on different healthcare decision-making levels. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:1075–1082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Viscusi, WK, Harrington, JE, Vernon, JM. Economics of regulation and antitrust. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2005.Google Scholar
30. Viscusi, WK, Aldy, JE. The value of a statistical life: A critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertain. 2003;27:5–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar