IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v20y2022i6d10.1007_s40258-022-00750-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to Pay for One Additional Quality Adjusted Life Year: A Population Based Survey from China

Author

Listed:
  • Ziping Ye

    (Shenyang Pharmaceutical University
    Hainan University)

  • Raela Abduhilil

    (Shenyang Pharmaceutical University)

  • Jiaxin Huang

    (Shenyang Pharmaceutical University)

  • Lihua Sun

    (Shenyang Pharmaceutical University)

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to estimate the population’s willingness to pay (WTP) for an additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in China. Methods The WTP for an additional QALY (WTP/Q) was estimated using a contingent valuation survey with quota sampling and snowball sampling, using a pre-designed questionnaire with 18 hypothetical scenarios. The change in health state was depicted by the EQ-5D-5L. The questionnaires were completed by telephone and face-to-face interviews. Two-part regression models were used to test validity and how different factors affect WTP/Q. Results A total of 2008 people participated in this survey and provided 3265 WTP responses for further analysis. The average WTP/Q for the entire sample is 113,120 Renminbi (RMB) (USD 16,884), which is 1.75 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. For the quality-of-life improvement scenarios, the mean WTP/Q is RMB 78,907 (USD 11,777, 1.22 times GDP per capita), which is significantly lower than the life extension scenarios (RMB 177,761, USD 26,531, 2.76 times GDP per capita). Age was found to be negatively related to positive WTP. Educational level was positively related to the probability of reporting positive WTP and the level of WTP/Q. Although the EQ-5D-5L utility scores of respondents did not prove to be statistically significant determinants of WTP/Q, the two dimensions of EQ-5D-5L, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression, had an impact on WTP/Q. In addition, WTP/Q was higher when the health outcome had a 50% probability of occurring than when the health outcome was 100% certain. WTP/Q was higher when a lower health gain was presented to the respondent. Conclusion This study provides empirical evidence of the monetary value of an additional QALY from a sample of the Chinese population. In addition, a higher threshold for end-of-life therapies should be considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Ziping Ye & Raela Abduhilil & Jiaxin Huang & Lihua Sun, 2022. "Willingness to Pay for One Additional Quality Adjusted Life Year: A Population Based Survey from China," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 893-904, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00750-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-022-00750-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-022-00750-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-022-00750-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ana Bobinac & N. Job A. van Exel & Frans F. H. Rutten & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2013. "Valuing Qaly Gains By Applying A Societal Perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(10), pages 1272-1281, October.
    2. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto, 2000. "A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1485-1496, November.
    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. Meg Perry-Duxbury & Sebastian Himmler & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2023. "Willingness to pay for health gains from an international integrated early warning system for infectious disease outbreaks," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 967-986, August.
    2. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    3. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    4. Marcello Basili & Stefano Dalle Mura, 2004. "Ambiguity and macroeconomics:a rationale for price stickiness," Department of Economics University of Siena 428, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    5. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    6. Hamza Bahaji, 2011. "Incentives from stock option grants: a behavioral approach," Post-Print halshs-00681607, HAL.
    7. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    8. Emmanuel Kemel & Muriel Travers, 2016. "Comparing attitudes toward time and toward money in experience-based decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(1), pages 71-100, January.
    9. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    10. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    11. LiCalzi, Marco & Sorato, Annamaria, 2006. "The Pearson system of utility functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 560-573, July.
    12. Attema, Arthur E. & l’Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2019. "Measuring multivariate risk preferences in the health domain," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 15-24.
    13. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    14. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2008. "Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 208-216, January.
    15. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Shaw, W. Douglass & Silva, Andres, 2006. "The Effect of Risk Presentation on Product Valuation: An Experimental Analysis," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21429, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    17. Lefebvre, Mathieu & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2010. "Incentive effects on risk attitude in small probability prospects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 115-120, November.
    18. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Hilda Kammoun, 2013. "Do financial professionals behave according to prospect theory? An experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 411-429, March.
    19. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Emmanuel Kemel, 2014. "Eliciting Prospect Theory When Consequences Are Measured in Time Units: “Time Is Not Money”," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1844-1859, July.
    20. W. Douglass Shaw & Andres Silva & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2006. "Health benefits and uncertainty: an experimental analysis of the effects of risk presentation on auction bids for a healthful product," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(20), pages 1-8.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00750-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.