IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0062840.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Valuation of Health Care Services in Public Health Systems: A Study about Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Nursing Consultations

Author

Listed:
  • Jesús Martín-Fernández
  • Mª Isabel del Cura-González
  • Gemma Rodríguez-Martínez
  • Gloria Ariza-Cardiel
  • Javier Zamora
  • Tomás Gómez-Gascón
  • Elena Polentinos-Castro
  • Francisco Javier Pérez-Rivas
  • Julia Domínguez-Bidagor
  • Milagros Beamud-Lagos
  • Mª Eugenia Tello-Bernabé
  • Juan Francisco Conde-López
  • Óscar Aguado-Arroyo
  • Mª Teresa Sanz- Bayona
  • Ana Isabel Gil-Lacruz

Abstract

Background: Identifying the economic value assigned by users to a particular health service is of principal interest in planning the service. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perception of economic value of nursing consultation in primary care (PC) by its users. Methods and Results: Economic study using contingent valuation methodology. A total of 662 users of nursing consultation from 23 health centers were included. Data on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, health needs, pattern of usage, and satisfaction with provided service were compiled. The validity of the response was evaluated by an explanatory mixed-effects multilevel model in order to assess the factors associated with the response according to the welfare theory. Response reliability was also evaluated. Subjects included in the study indicated an average Willingness to Pay (WTP) of €14.4 (CI 95%: €13.2–15.5; median €10) and an average Willingness to Accept [Compensation] (WTA) of €20.9 (CI 95%: €19.6–22.2; median €20). Average area income, personal income, consultation duration, home visit, and education level correlated with greater WTP. Women and older subjects showed lower WTP. Fixed parameters explained 8.41% of the residual variability, and response clustering in different health centers explained 4–6% of the total variability. The influence of income on WTP was different in each center. The responses for WTP and WTA in a subgroup of subjects were consistent when reassessed after 2 weeks (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.952 and 0.893, respectively). Conclusions: The economic value of nursing services provided within PC in a public health system is clearly perceived by its user. The perception of this value is influenced by socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the subjects and their environment, and by the unique characteristics of the evaluated service. The method of contingent valuation is useful for making explicit this perception of value of health services.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesús Martín-Fernández & Mª Isabel del Cura-González & Gemma Rodríguez-Martínez & Gloria Ariza-Cardiel & Javier Zamora & Tomás Gómez-Gascón & Elena Polentinos-Castro & Francisco Javier Pérez-Rivas & J, 2013. "Economic Valuation of Health Care Services in Public Health Systems: A Study about Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Nursing Consultations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-9, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0062840
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062840
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062840
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062840&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0062840?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Borghi, Josephine & Jan, Stephen, 2008. "Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: Application of the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 235-248, August.
    2. Tracy Lieu & G. Ray & Ismael Ortega-Sanchez & Ken Kleinman & Donna Rusinak, 2009. "Willingness to Pay for a QALY Based on Community Member and Patient Preferences for Temporary Health States Associated with Herpes Zoster," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 27(12), pages 1005-1016, December.
    3. Martín-Fernández, Jesús & Gómez-Gascón, Tomás & Oliva-Moreno, Juan & del Cura-González, María Isabel & Domínguez-Bidagor, Julia & Beamud-Lagos, Milagros & Sanz-Cuesta, Teresa, 2010. "Perception of the economic value of primary care services: A willingness to pay study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 266-272, March.
    4. Claudine de Meijer & Werner Brouwer & Marc Koopmanschap & Bernard van den Berg & Job van Exel, 2010. "The value of informal care–a further investigation of the feasibility of contingent valuation in informal caregivers," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(7), pages 755-771, July.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    6. B O'Brien & A Gafni, 1996. "When Do the "Dollars" Make Sense? Toward a Conceptual Framework for Contingent Valuation Studies in Health Care," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1996-22, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    7. Alan Shiell & Karen McIntosh, 2008. "Subject variation more than values clarification explains the reliability of willingness to pay estimates," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(2), pages 287-292, February.
    8. Foster, Michele M. & Earl, Peter E. & Haines, Terry P. & Mitchell, Geoffrey K., 2010. "Unravelling the concept of consumer preference: Implications for health policy and optimal planning in primary care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(2-3), pages 105-112, October.
    9. Josephine Borghi, 2008. "Aggregation rules for cost–benefit analysis: a health economics perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 863-875, July.
    10. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    11. Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326, June.
    12. O'Shea, Eamon & Gannon, Brenda & Kennelly, Brendan, 2008. "Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in mental health care in Ireland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 359-370, December.
    13. Costa-Font, Joan & Rovira-Forns, Joan, 2008. "Who is willing to pay for long-term care insurance in Catalonia?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 72-84, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martín-Fernández, Jesús & Gómez-Gascón, Tomás & Oliva-Moreno, Juan & del Cura-González, María Isabel & Domínguez-Bidagor, Julia & Beamud-Lagos, Milagros & Sanz-Cuesta, Teresa, 2010. "Perception of the economic value of primary care services: A willingness to pay study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 266-272, March.
    2. Jesús Martín-Fernández & Gloria Ariza-Cardiel & Luz Mª Peña-Longobardo & Elena Polentinos-Castro & Juan Oliva-Moreno & Ana Isabel Gil-Lacruz & Héctor Medina-Palomino & Isabel del Cura-González, 2017. "“Gaining or losing”: The importance of the perspective in primary care health services valuation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-14, December.
    3. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    5. Jennifer Whitty, 2012. "Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 361-363, November.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:96-106 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Fan Yang & Brenda Gannon & Andrew Weightman, 2018. "Public’s Willingness to Pay Towards a Medical Device for Detecting Foot Ulceration in People with Diabetes," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 559-567, August.
    8. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Mette Lundsby Jensen & Trine Kjaer, 2014. "Framing The Willingness‐To‐Pay Question: Impact On Response Patterns And Mean Willingness To Pay," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(5), pages 550-563, May.
    9. Laura J. Damschroder & Peter A. Ubel & Jason Riis & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "An alternative approach for eliciting willingness-to-pay: A randomized Internet trial," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 96-106, April.
    10. Greenberg, Dan & Bakhai, Ameet & Neumann, Peter J. & Cohen, David J., 2004. "Willingness to pay for avoiding coronary restenosis and repeat revascularization: results from a contingent valuation study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 207-216, November.
    11. Whynes, David K. & Sach, Tracey H., 2007. "WTP and WTA: Do people think differently?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 946-957, September.
    12. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2014. "Modelling Heterogeneity and Uncertainty in Contingent Valuation: an Application to the Valuation of Informal Care," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 61(1), pages 1-25, February.
    13. David Christafore & Susane Leguizamon, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Hospital Access in Areas with High Concentrations of Blacks," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 45(1), pages 87-104, Spring.
    14. Dror, David Mark & Radermacher, Ralf & Koren, Ruth, 2007. "Willingness to pay for health insurance among rural and poor persons: Field evidence from seven micro health insurance units in India," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 12-27, June.
    15. Markus König & Christian Pfarr & Peter Zweifel, 2014. "Mutual Altruism: Evidence from Alzheimer Patients and Their Spouse Caregivers," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 141-160, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    16. Alan Shiell & Lisa Gold, 2003. "If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 909-919, November.
    17. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    18. Smith, Richard D. & Richardson, Jeff, 2005. "Can we estimate the `social' value of a QALY?: Four core issues to resolve," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 77-84, September.
    19. Tambor, Marzena & Pavlova, Milena & Rechel, Bernd & Golinowska, Stanisława & Sowada, Christoph & Groot, Wim, 2014. "Willingness to pay for publicly financed health care services in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence from six countries based on a contingent valuation method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 193-201.
    20. Xiao-Hua Ying & Teh-Wei Hu & Jane Ren & Wen Chen & Ke Xu & Jin-Hui Huang, 2007. "Demand for private health insurance in Chinese urban areas," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1041-1050.
    21. Powdthavee, Nattavudh & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Putting different price tags on the same health condition: Re-evaluating the well-being valuation approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1032-1043.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0062840. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.