ライフサイエンスコーパス: discount rate

1 ty payer perspective and applied a 3% annual discount rate.

2 ealth care sector perspective, assuming a 3% discount rate.

3 6, depending on preschool enrolment rate and discount rate.

4 vesting over time, employing a constant time discount rate.

5 uality adjustment due to gastric cancer, and discount rate.

6 em-climate sensitivity, climate damages, and discount rate.

7 d to healthcare costs, and using a 3% annual discount rate.

8 ents with newly diagnosed cancer, and to the discount rate.

9 atio of injuries to fatalities, and the real discount rate.

10 the striatum and an age-related decrease in discount rates.

11 0.50-$5.50/Mcf across the range of potential discount rates.

12 h the parties are expected to have different discount rates.

13 elected to purchase the Health Compass at a discounted rate.

14 d the larger/later option, reducing measured discounting rates.

15 e had a total of 3 QALYs per patient with no discount rate and 2.30 QALYs discounted.

16 dose MMR schedule with an assumption of a 3% discount rate and measles eradication in 2010.

17 s would result from option 3, by use of a 5% discount rate and the assumption that measles eradicatio

18 we controlled for the reference price, price discount rate, and brand-specific effects, the sales upl

19 antiviral therapy, the cost of therapy, the discount rate, and the QALY losses assigned to disease s

20 e assumed a nine-year analytic horizon, a 3% discount rate, and zero screening costs.

21 ying the penetrance, mortality rates, costs, discount rates, and preferences had minimal effects on o

22 ritical uncertainties, as well as a range of discount rates, and should explicitly characterize uncer

23 d-the results are therefore sensitive to the discount rate applied, and more generally to the future

24 babilities, rates, utilities, costs, and the discount rate are simultaneously varied to extreme value

25 This study uses the discount rate as a proxy for these perceptions and decis

26 that combines a survey-based measure of time discount rates (at age 13) with detailed longitudinal re

27 layed over earlier rewards (i.e., less steep discount rates) compared with HC; after weight restorati

28 his paper examines harvesting plans when the discount rate declines over time.

29 me time horizon, US societal perspective, 3% discount rate for costs, and health outcomes.

30 sis that an important factor influencing the discount rate for future rewards is the quality with whi

31 magination are significantly correlated with discounting rates for future monetary payments.

32 impulsivity, as reflected in monetary delay discounting rates, for those with high VS-low amygdala r

33 on studies show that accumulation, and small discounting rates (high future value) can both promote c

34 ve of the utility, which uses a market-based discount rate in these calculations.

35 We argue that the choice of discount rate is an ethical primitive: there are many di

36 s stock levels in the early stages (when the discount rate is high) and intends to compensate by allo

37 hree times GDPpc, (iii) 14%-19% lower if the discount rate is increased to 6%, and (iv) 36% (95% CI 2

38 pproach in which a diverse set of individual discount rates is aggregated into a "representative" rat

39 A discount rate of 0.03, time horizon of 2010-2050, and a

40 to a decision analytic model, with an annual discount rate of 3% applied.

41 We used a discount rate of 3% to adjust all costs and DALYs to pre

42 A discount rate of 3% was used.

43 ctiveness ratios per life-year saved, with a discount rate of 3%, are $20,717, $29,970, $72,780, and

44 tic product per capita (GDPpc) and an annual discount rate of 3%.

45 all survival, and costs to 15 years, using a discount rate of 3%.

46 to be pound19 252 (95% CI 7622-59 200) at a discount rate of 3.5%.

47 VMMC at age 20 are estimated at US$617 at a discount rate of 5% and are lower for circumcisions both

48 ical costs (in 1994 dollars, using a 3% real discount rate), of which $1.1 billion (49%) was paid by

49 herapeutic target for individuals whose high discount rates promote detrimental behaviors.

50 determinants of cost-effectiveness were the discount rate, protective effectiveness, baseline neonat

51 gation efficiently leads to a time-dependent discount rate that declines monotonically to the lowest

52 With a declining discount rate, the planner reduces stock levels in the e

53 th variable delay times, yielding individual discount rates-the rate by which money loses value over

54 Disagreements about the value of the utility discount rate--the rate at which our concern for the wel

55 ld to three times GDPpc, (iv) increasing the discount rate to 6%, and (v) accounting for the proporti

56 t had a relevant impact on ICER included the discount rate, visual acuity before CXL, and healthcare

57 The ICER was somewhat higher if the discount rate was set at either 0 or 0.06.

58 The full life time cost per patient, with no discount rate, was pound65,310 (95% CI pound64,981- poun

59 oviral therapy, quality-of-life weights, and discount rate were varied.

60 iour suggests that we have evolved to employ discount rates which fall over time, often referred to a

61 g the stock level to recover later (when the discount rate will be lower).

62 Seemingly small differences in the discount rate yield very different policy prescriptions,