Hi wes R, I’ll answer your questions in this comment!
The impact measurements greatly varied by evaluator. For example, GW makes decisions using its “moral weights” (which primarily measures consumption and health outcomes, but I don’t believe in a way that neatly reduces to QALYs). Meanwhile, HLI uses “WELLBYs”. Other evaluators used different measurements at different times, or relied on subjective scores of cost-effectiveness. You can read more about these in our evaluations (linked to here).
I’m not sure we have much in the way of a generalised view of which metrics we think should be used or not. In general:
These metrics should help support making more cost-effective recommendations and grants.
To the extent they do, we’re happy to see them!
In some cases, metrics might end up forcing over-precision in a way that is not particularly helpful. In these cases, we think it could be more sensible to take a more subjective approach.
Hi wes R, I’ll answer your questions in this comment!
The impact measurements greatly varied by evaluator. For example, GW makes decisions using its “moral weights” (which primarily measures consumption and health outcomes, but I don’t believe in a way that neatly reduces to QALYs). Meanwhile, HLI uses “WELLBYs”. Other evaluators used different measurements at different times, or relied on subjective scores of cost-effectiveness. You can read more about these in our evaluations (linked to here).
I’m not sure we have much in the way of a generalised view of which metrics we think should be used or not. In general:
These metrics should help support making more cost-effective recommendations and grants.
To the extent they do, we’re happy to see them!
In some cases, metrics might end up forcing over-precision in a way that is not particularly helpful. In these cases, we think it could be more sensible to take a more subjective approach.
Hope that helps!