The second phase of the project includes developing methods papers and case studies to support the extension of the iDSI Reference Case to include benefit-cost analysis. The initial drafts of these papers were reviewed by selected experts, posted online for public comment, and discussed in a November 2-3, 2017 workshop at Harvard University. We are now updating these papers to reflect the many very thoughtful and helpful comments we have received.
The initial drafts of the methods papers can be downloaded using the links below.
- Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions in Global Benefit-Cost Analysis, Lisa A. Robinson, James K. Hammitt, and Lucy O’Keeffe (Harvard University)
- Valuing Nonfatal Health Risk Reductions in Global Benefit-Cost Analysis, Lisa A. Robinson and James K. Hammitt (Harvard University)
- Accounting for the Timing of Costs and Benefits in the Evaluation of Health Projects Relevant to LMICs, Karl Claxton (University of York)
- Valuing Changes in Time Use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, Dale Whittington (University of North Carolina) and Joseph Cook (Washington State University)
- Assessing the Economy-wide Effects of Health and Environmental Interventions in Support of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Kenneth M. Strzepek (MIT), Collins Amanya (Ugandan Ministry of Water and Environment), and James E. Neumann (Industrial Economics)
- Assessing the Distribution of Impacts in Global Benefit-Cost Analysis, Lisa A. Robinson and James K. Hammitt (Harvard University) with supplement by Matthew Adler (Duke University)
- Valuing Protection against Health-Related Financial Risks, Dean Jamison (University of California – San Francisco) and Jonathan Skinner (Dartmouth College)
These methods papers build on our scoping report and discuss the conceptual framework, review the relevant literature, and suggest analytic approaches that can be feasibly implemented in the near‐term. They also identify priorities for future research. Although these papers will provide the basis for the benefit-cost analysis reference case guidance, the reference case may ultimately deviate from their recommendations in some areas.
In addition, case studies will be used to demonstrate the effects of the different choices discussed in the methods papers. Two preliminary case studies have been completed and can be downloaded using the links below. They will be updated to reflect the recommendations in the revised methods papers as well as the many very useful and insightful comments we have received.
- Standardized Sensitivity Analysis in BCA: An Education Case Study, Elina Pradhan (World Bank) and Dean Jamison (University of California — San Francisco)
- Cost-Benefit Analysis of an Early Childhood Nutrition Intervention to Prevent Stunting in Haiti, Brad Wong (Copenhagen Consensus Center) and Peter F. Orazem (Iowa State University)
We expect to commission additional case studies, which will likely include completed cost‐effectiveness analyses that adhere as closely as possible to the existing reference case requirements, so as to provide examples of the similarities and differences between cost‐effectiveness analysis and benefit‐cost analysis. The case studies will also likely include testing the effect of different methodological choices on the conclusions of previously completed benefit‐cost analyses.