Laidback Al
Well-known member
Valuing "Lives Saved" vs. "Life-Years Saved"
Risk in Perspective, March 2008
link to pdf file: http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/rip/rip_Mar_2008.pdf
Excerpt:
from-
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA): Risk in Perspective
Our newsletter allows HCRA faculty and invited authors to communicate their research on an issue of interest. It provides a shorter and more accessible account of research findings and their policy relevance.
We send Risk in Perspective to several thousand people in the fields of public and environmental health. Please go to the mailing list link on our home page to be added to the email distribution list for future issues.
<o
></o>
<o>http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/index.html</o>
Risk in Perspective, March 2008
link to pdf file: http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/rip/rip_Mar_2008.pdf
Excerpt:
Introduction<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice
James K. Hammitt<o
<o
<o
There is long-standing debate whether<o
to count ?lives saved? or ?life-years saved?<o
when evaluating policies to reduce mortality<o
risk. Historically, the two approaches<o
have been applied in different domains.<o
Environmental and transportation policies<o
have often been evaluated using lives<o
saved, while life-years saved has been the<o
preferred metric in other areas of public<o
health including medicine, vaccination, and<o
disease screening. For benefit-cost analysis,<o
the monetary value of risk reductions<o
can be calculated either by multiplying expected<o
lives saved by the ?value per statistical<o
life? (VSL) or by multiplying expected<o
life-years saved by the ?value per<o
statistical life-year? (VSLY).<o
<o
The choice between metrics can affect<o
the apparent merits of regulatory programs<o
that affect people with different life expectancies.<o
For example, the air-pollution<o
measures that dominate the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
agenda may disproportionately benefit people<o
who are older or in poor health and<o
have shorter-than-average life expectancies.<o
The benefits of these rules may appear<o
larger when counting lives rather than lifeyears<o
saved. Conversely, policies to protect<o
children such as car-seat requirements may<o
appear to be larger when counting lifeyears<o
saved. The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1
and Budget has encouraged federal<o
agencies to analyze regulations using both<o
the lives-saved and life-years-saved approaches.<o
<o
In this issue of Risk in Perspective, I<o
describe how the value of any intervention<o
that alters mortality risk can be expressed<o
using either lives saved or life-years saved<o
and the appropriate VSL or VSLY. However,<o
because theory and empirical evidence<o
suggest that neither VSL nor VSLY<o
is constant over an individual?s life, accurate<o
valuation requires using values that<o
depend on characteristics of the affected<o
individuals. The extent to which VSL and<o
VSLY vary with life expectancy, age,<o
health, and other factors is not clear; better<o
empirical evidence is required. . . .
from-
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA): Risk in Perspective
Our newsletter allows HCRA faculty and invited authors to communicate their research on an issue of interest. It provides a shorter and more accessible account of research findings and their policy relevance.
We send Risk in Perspective to several thousand people in the fields of public and environmental health. Please go to the mailing list link on our home page to be added to the email distribution list for future issues.
<o
></o><o
>http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/index.html</o>
