According to the CCM, the cost-effectiveness of direct cash transfers is 2 DALY/âk$. However, you calculated a significantly lower cost-effectiveness of 1.20 DALY/âk$ (or 836 $/âDALY) based on GiveWellâs estimates. The upper bound of the 90 % CI you use in the CCM actually matches the point estimate of 836 $/âDALY you inferred from GiveWellâs estimates. Do you have reasons to believe GiveWellâs estimate is pessimistic?
We adopt a (mostly arbitrary) uncertainty distribution around this central estimate [inferred from GiveWellâs estimates].
I agree the distribution will have some arbitrariness, but I think the mean cost-effectiveness should still match the one corresponding to GiveWellâs estimates, as these are supposed to be interpreted as best guesses?
Because direct cash transfer are about 2 times as cost-effective in the CCM as for GiveWell, Open Philâs bar equals GiveWellâs bar in the CCM, whereas I thought Open Phil bar was supposed to become 2 times as high as GiveWellâs after this update.
This gives it an average cost per expected DALY averted of $611.00 with a median cost per expected DALY averted of $649.1690% of simulations fall between $1.13 and $2.45.
These values that we included in the CCM for these interventions should probably be treated as approximate and only accurate to roughly an order of magnitude. These actual numbers may be a bit dated and probably donât fully reflect current thinking about the marginal value of GHD interventions. Iâll talk with the team about whether they should be updated, but note that this wasnât a deliberate re-evaluation of past work.
That said, it important to keep in mind that there are disagreements about what different kinds of effects are worth, such as Open Philanthropyâs reassessment of cash transfers (to which both they and GiveWell pin their effectiveness evaluations). We canât directly compare OPâs self-professed bar with GiveWellâs self-professed bar as if the units are interchangeable. This is a complexity that is not well represented in the CCM. The Worldview Investigations team has not tried to adjudicate such disagreements over GHD interventions.
Hi,
According to the CCM, the cost-effectiveness of direct cash transfers is 2 DALY/âk$. However, you calculated a significantly lower cost-effectiveness of 1.20 DALY/âk$ (or 836 $/âDALY) based on GiveWellâs estimates. The upper bound of the 90 % CI you use in the CCM actually matches the point estimate of 836 $/âDALY you inferred from GiveWellâs estimates. Do you have reasons to believe GiveWellâs estimate is pessimistic?
I agree the distribution will have some arbitrariness, but I think the mean cost-effectiveness should still match the one corresponding to GiveWellâs estimates, as these are supposed to be interpreted as best guesses?
Because direct cash transfer are about 2 times as cost-effective in the CCM as for GiveWell, Open Philâs bar equals GiveWellâs bar in the CCM, whereas I thought Open Phil bar was supposed to become 2 times as high as GiveWellâs after this update.
Nitpick, â. â is missing before â90%â.
I appreciate your attention to these details!
These values that we included in the CCM for these interventions should probably be treated as approximate and only accurate to roughly an order of magnitude. These actual numbers may be a bit dated and probably donât fully reflect current thinking about the marginal value of GHD interventions. Iâll talk with the team about whether they should be updated, but note that this wasnât a deliberate re-evaluation of past work.
That said, it important to keep in mind that there are disagreements about what different kinds of effects are worth, such as Open Philanthropyâs reassessment of cash transfers (to which both they and GiveWell pin their effectiveness evaluations). We canât directly compare OPâs self-professed bar with GiveWellâs self-professed bar as if the units are interchangeable. This is a complexity that is not well represented in the CCM. The Worldview Investigations team has not tried to adjudicate such disagreements over GHD interventions.