IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v29y2011i11p963-975.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to Pay for Adverse Drug Event Regulatory Actions

Author

Listed:
  • Jacoline Bouvy
  • Just Weemers
  • Huub Schellekens
  • Marc Koopmanschap

Abstract

Background: Regulatory requirements for the pharmaceutical industry have become increasingly demanding with respect to the safety and effectiveness of drugs. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the willingness to pay (WTP), of both the Dutch general public and dialysis patients, for regulatory requirements related to reducing the risk of pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) associated with epoetin alpha use. Methods: A survey was carried out in April 2009. The Dutch general public (n=422) was approached through a survey sampling agency. Patients (n=112) were included through several Dutch dialysis clinics because they are often treated with epoetin alpha and therefore were expected to have a higher WTP than the general public. The survey aimed to determine the WTP for reducing the risk of PRCA in epoetin alpha users from 4.5 to 0 per 10 000 patients per year, based on regulatory actions that have been taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). WTP was determined via a payment scale and an open-ended follow-up question. Patients were asked how much extra per year they would be willing to pay for their basic healthcare insurance. We used two censored regression models to test the association between WTP and a set of independent variables: a Tobit model with the stated WTP as the dependent variable and an interval regression model with the interval between the lower and upper bounds of the payment scale as the dependent variable. Results: The patients’ mean WTP was significantly higher (€46.52) than that of the general public (€24.40). The Tobit model showed significant associations (α=0.05) with WTP for dialysis patients, risk perception and respondents’ opinions on costs of healthcare. The interval regression model showed significant associations with WTP for the same variables as the Tobit model and for one additional variable (risk aversion). Income did not significantly affect WTP. A scenario with a 10-fold larger risk reduction did not increaseWTP significantly. Conclusion: This study is, as far as we know, one of the first attempts to analyse the WTP for drug regulation and should in future be used in studies of the societal costs of drug regulation for epoetin alpha use. Our results indicate that the Dutch general public, especially Dutch dialysis patients, are willing to pay limited amounts to reduce the risk of serious adverse events associated with drug use. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2011

Suggested Citation

  • Jacoline Bouvy & Just Weemers & Huub Schellekens & Marc Koopmanschap, 2011. "Willingness to Pay for Adverse Drug Event Regulatory Actions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 963-975, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:11:p:963-975
    DOI: 10.2165/11539860-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11539860-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11539860-000000000-00000?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. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Kristrom, Bengt & Gerdtham, Ulf-G., 1993. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- further results," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 95-108, April.
    2. Dave, Dhaval & Saffer, Henry, 2008. "Alcohol demand and risk preference," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 810-831, December.
    3. Wagner, Todd H. & Hu, Teh-wei & Duenas, Grace V. & Pasick, Rena J., 2000. "Willingness to pay for mammography: item development and testing among five ethnic groups," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 105-121, September.
    4. Han Bleichrodt & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2006. "Willingness to pay for reductions in health risks when probabilities are distorted," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 211-214, February.
    5. Jones-Lee, M W, 1992. "Paternalistic Altruism and the Value of Statistical Life," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(410), pages 80-90, January.
    6. Rollins, Kimberly & Lyke, Audrey, 1998. "The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 324-344, November.
    7. Jose-Luis Pinto-Prades & Veronica Farreras & Jaime de Bobadilla, 2008. "Willingness to pay for a reduction in mortality risk after a myocardial infarction: an application of the contingent valuation method to the case of eplerenone," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(1), pages 69-78, February.
    8. Liu, Jin-Tan & Tsou, Meng-Wen & Hammitt, James K., 2009. "Willingness to pay for weight-control treatment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 211-218, July.
    9. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    10. Ryan, Mandy & Ratcliffe, Julie & Tucker, Janet, 1997. "Using willingness to pay to value alternative models of antenatal care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 371-380, February.
    11. Jacobsson, Fredric & Carstensen, John & Borgquist, Lars, 2005. "Caring externalities in health economic evaluation: how are they related to severity of illness?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 172-182, August.
    12. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    13. Gyldmark, Marlene & Morrison, Gwendolyn C., 2001. "Demand for health care in Denmark: results of a national sample survey using contingent valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 1023-1036, October.
    14. Cam Donaldson & Andrew Jones & Tracy Mapp & Jan Abel Olson, 1998. "Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 667-677.
    15. Robert B. Barsky & F. Thomas Juster & Miles S. Kimball & Matthew D. Shapiro, 1997. "Preference Parameters and Behavioral Heterogeneity: An Experimental Approach in the Health and Retirement Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 537-579.
    16. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.
    17. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
    18. Jones-Lee, M W, 1991. "Altruism and the Value of Other People's Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 213-219, April.
    19. A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), 2000. "Handbook of Health Economics," Handbook of Health Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    20. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2003. "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 151-185, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caroline Steigenberger & Magdalena Flatscher-Thoeni & Uwe Siebert & Andrea M. Leiter, 2022. "Determinants of willingness to pay for health services: a systematic review of contingent valuation studies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(9), pages 1455-1482, December.

    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. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2002. "Willingness to pay for health risk reduction in the context of altruism," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 623-635, October.
    3. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    4. Bernard van den Berg & Amiram Gafni & France Portrait, 2013. "Attributing a monetary value to patients’ time: A contingent valuation approach," Working Papers 090cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Strand.J., 2001. "Public- and private-good values of statistical lives : results from a combined choice-experiment and contingent-valuation survey," Memorandum 31/2001, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    6. Inas Kelly & Dhaval Dave & Jody Sindelar & William Gallo, 2014. "The impact of early occupational choice on health behaviors," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 737-770, December.
    7. Shinji Takemura & Takashi Ohida & Tomofumi Sone & Takashi Fukuda & Yukie Takemura, 2005. "Influences of the absence of random assignment of bids on estimating willingness to pay using a discrete‐choice question," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 209-213, February.
    8. Wagstaff, Adam & Culyer, Anthony J., 2012. "Four decades of health economics through a bibliometric lens," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 406-439.
    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. Hurley, Jeremiah & Mentzakis, Emmanouil, 2013. "Health-related externalities: Evidence from a choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 671-681.
    11. Daniel E. Jonas & Louise B. Russell & Jon Chou & Michael Pignone, 2010. "Willingness‐to‐pay to avoid the time spent and discomfort associated with screening colonoscopy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1193-1211, October.
    12. Shackley, Phil & Donaldson, Cam, 2002. "Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care?: New evidence from using a 'marginal' approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 971-991, November.
    13. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    14. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    15. Ryan, Mandy & San Miguel, Fernando, 2000. "Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 305-317, June.
    16. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2003. "A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalise their WTP responses to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 65-75, February.
    17. Wiktor Adamowicz & Mark Dickie & Shelby Gerking & Marcella Veronesi & David Zinner, 2014. "Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 481-519.
    18. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Kjær, Trine & Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2016. "The value of mortality risk reductions. Pure altruism - a confounder?," DaCHE discussion papers 2016:5, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    19. Richard D. Smith, 2008. "Contingent valuation in health care: does it matter how the ‘good’ is described?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 607-617, May.
    20. Menon Martina & Perali Federico & Veronesi Marcella, 2017. "“Leaving No Child Behind:” Preferences for Social Inclusion and Altruism," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, July.

    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:pharme:v:29:y:2011:i:11:p:963-975. 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.