Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
1 Civil Systems Planning Benefit/Cost Analysis Scott Matthews Courses: 12-706 and 73-359 Lecture 17 - 11/5/2003
2
12-706 and 73-3592 Economic valuations of life Miller (n=29) $3 M in 1999 USD, surveyed Wage risk premium method WTP for safety measures Behavioral decisions (e.g. seat belt use) Foregone future earnings Contingent valuation
3
12-706 and 73-3593 Specifics on Saving Lives Cost-Utility Analysis Quantity and quality of lives important Just like discounting, lives are not equal Back to the developing/developed example But also: YEARS are not equal Young lives “more important” than old Cutting short a year of life for us vs Cutting short a year of life for 85-year-old Often look at ‘life years’ rather than ‘lives’ saved.. These values also get discounted
4
12-706 and 73-3594 Contingent Valuation Analysis method used when there is no observable market Example: water quality at national parks Asks questions to population Is a last resort option! Called ‘contingent’ since you never really pay Valuing use non-controversial Valuing ‘non-use’ VERY controversial
5
12-706 and 73-3595 Example Asked for valuations of a certain good Then estimate overall WTP for it - similar to travel time demand functions Extrapolated to entire population Assumes random sample!
6
12-706 and 73-3596 Criticisms of CV Extrapolation of ‘all CV studies’ to average consumer would take over their budget Normal statistical problems (sampling, non-response, biases, etc.) Surveying opinions is imprecise Problems tend to be complicated
7
12-706 and 73-3597 WTP versus WTA Economics implies that WTP should be equal to ‘willingness to accept’ loss Turns out people want MUCH MORE in compensation for losing something WTA is factor of 4-15 higher than WTP! Also see discrepancy shrink with experience WTP formats should be used in CVs Only can compare amongst individuals
8
12-706 and 73-3598 Measuring Lives Saved Life years (prevented fatalities) not equal Qualitative and quantitative issue Need to consider tradeoffs Simple example from text Status quo: no newborns survive a condition Alt. A: 5 live, but with permanent disability Alt. B: 2 live, but with low levels of disability Which option (SQ, A, B) is preferable? Assume Y increasing, H increasing Equal costs, no relevant uncertainty
9
12-706 and 73-3599 Simple Example
10
12-706 and 73-35910 The Quality/Quantity Game Assume “preference” for Increased number of years lived Increased level of health Would your preferences be the same? If so, SQ “dominated” by A and B Note different horizontal/vertical preference But which of A or B is better? We all understand difference in years Need an index of health status
11
12-706 and 73-35911 Health Status Index Death 0 Severely Disabled Minimally Disabled HealthModerately Disabled 0.150.470.921 Measures utility, derived from experts Combine with Y values for QALYs But this says nothing about tradeoff! Can perform tradeoff survey Value of “shorter Y, higher H” vs. opposite
12
12-706 and 73-35912 Methods Health Rating method (see above) Time tradeoff method Standard gamble method Discounting life years Can/should we discount them? Unlike cash values, we can’t make a decision to trade 1 year today for 10 yrs from now
13
12-706 and 73-35913 Example - MAIS scale Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is an anatomically based system that classifies individual injuries by body region on a six point ordinal scale of risk to life. AIS does not assess the combined effects of multiple injuries. The maximum AIS (MAIS) is the highest single AIS code for an occupant with multiple injuries.
14
12-706 and 73-35914 MAIS Table - Used for QALY Conversions Comprehensive Fatality / Injury Values Injury Severity1994 Relative Value MAIS1.0038 MAIS2.0468 MAIS3.1655 MAIS4.4182 MAIS5.8791 Fatality1.0
15
12-706 and 73-35915 Risk Analysis Study of the interactions between decision making, judgment, and nature Evidence : cost-effectiveness of risk reduction opportunities varied widely - orders of magnitude Economic efficiency problems
16
12-706 and 73-35916 Cost-Effectiveness of Life-Saving Interventions From “500 Life-saving Interventions and Their Cost-Effectiveness”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1995. ‘References’ (eg #1127) are all other studies Model: Estimate costs of intervention vs. a baseline Discount all costs Estimate lives and life-years saved Discount life years saved CE = C I -C B /E I -E B
17
12-706 and 73-35917 Specific (Sample) Example From p.373 - Ref no. 1127 Intervention: Rear outboard lap/shoulder belts in all (100%) of cars Baseline: 95.8% of cars already in compliance Intervention: require all cars made after 9/1/90 to have belts Thus costs only apply to remaining 4% of cars Target population: occupants over age 4 Others would be in child safety seats What would costs be?
18
12-706 and 73-35918 Example (cont) 1986 Costs (from study): $6 cost per seat Plus added fuel costs (due to increased weight) = total $791,000 over life of all cars produced Effectiveness: expect 23 lives saved during 8.4 year lifetime of cars But 95.8% already exist, thus only 0.966 lives Or 0.115 lives per year (of use of car) But these lives saved do not occur all in year 0 - they are spread out over 8.4 years. Thus discount the effectiveness of lives saved per year into ‘year 0’ lives..
19
12-706 and 73-35919 Cost per life saved With a 5% discount rate, the ‘present value’ of 0.115 lives for 9 years = 0.817 (less than 0.966) Discounted lives saved = 0.115)/(1.05) j ; j=1..9 This is basically an annuity factor So cost/life saved = $791,000/0.817 Or $967,700 per life (in “$1986/1986 lives”) Using CPI: 145.8/109.6 -> $1,287,326 in $1993 But this tells us only the cost per life saved We realistically care more about quality of life, which suggests using a quality index, e.g. life- years saved.
20
12-706 and 73-35920 Sample Life Expectancy Table 35-year old American expected to live 43.6 more years (newer data than our study) Source: National Center for Health Statistics, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm
21
12-706 and 73-35921 Cost per life-year saved Assume average age of fatality in car accident was 35 years Life expectancy tables suggest a 35 year old person would on average live to age 77 Thus ‘42’ life years saved per fatality avoided 1 life year for 42 years @5%= 17.42 years $1993 cost/life-year = $1,287,326/17.42 2 sig. figures: ~$74,000 as in paper Note $1,287,326 is already in cost/life units -> just need to further scale for life-years by 17.42
22
12-706 and 73-35922 Example 2 - Incremental CE Intervention: center (middle) lap/shoulder belts Baseline: outboard only - (done above) Same target population, etc. Cost: $96,771,000 Incremental cost : $96,771,000 - $791,000 Effectiveness: 3 lives/yr, 21.32 discounted Incremental Effectiveness: 21.32 - 0.817= 20.51 Cost/life saved = $95.98 million/20.51 = $4.7 million ($1986) => $6.22 million in $1993 Cost/life-year=$6.22 million/17.42 = $360,000
23
12-706 and 73-35923 Overall Results in Paper Some had $10B Median $42k per life year saved Some policies implemented, some only studied Variation of 11 orders of magnitude! Some maximums - $20 billion for benzene emissions control at tire factories $100 billion for chloroform standards at paper mills
24
12-706 and 73-35924 Comparisons
25
12-706 and 73-35925 Agency Comparisons $1993 Costs per life year saved for agencies: FAA (Aviation): $23,000 CPSC (Consumer Products): $68,000 NHTSA (Highways):$78,000 OSHA (Worker Safety): $88,000 EPA (Environment): $7,600,000! Are there underlying causes for range? Hint: are we comparing apples and oranges?
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.