avoiding conflict of interest, balancing bias, and ensuring broad representativeness. This panel could ensure that there is reasonable consistency among similar types of analyses produced within EPA and across other agencies.
The results of health benefits analyses are typically used as inputs to cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses; therefore, the results need to be presented in ways compatible for these analyses.
The presentation of methods, rationale, and results from health benefits analyses is sometimes inadequate. For example, EPA’s analyses do not highlight key assumptions that drive the analysis, do not indicate the rationale behind study selection, and do not present results in ways that allow verification of estimates obtained.
Benefits analyses are typically not scrutinized at the initial stages of study design, during the process, or at the final stages of the process.
EPA should provide health benefits estimates in ways that will support multiple kinds of analysis, including various approaches to mortality valuation and aggregation of benefits using quality-adjusted life-years.
EPA should provide a summary of the analysis containing information as outlined in Table 6-1. This information would allow the reader to evaluate the study design and verify estimates obtained in the analysis.
Each analysis should provide results according to demographic or other subgroups when the expected changes in pollution and thus the health benefits are not distributed uniformly across the population. This information would aid decision-makers in situations in which equity issues might be involved.
To enhance the quality of future regulatory benefits analyses, a standing, independent, technical review panel should advise EPA in the initial stages of its benefits analysis. This panel should have expertise in regulatory options analysis, emissions and exposure assessment, toxicology, epidemiology, risk analysis, biostatistics, and economics and should be ap-