IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v34y2016i12d10.1007_s40273-016-0435-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Value of Treatment to Address Various Symptoms Associated with Multiple Sclerosis: Results from a Contingent Valuation Study

Author

Listed:
  • Pei-Jung Lin

    (Tufts Medical Center)

  • Cayla J. Saret

    (Tufts Medical Center)

  • Peter J. Neumann

    (Tufts Medical Center)

  • Eileen A. Sandberg

    (Tufts Medical Center)

  • Joshua T. Cohen

    (Tufts Medical Center)

Abstract

Background Although it is well recognized that people with multiple sclerosis (MS) may experience impairments in addition to limited mobility, there has been little effort to study their relative importance to patients with the condition. The objective of this study was to assess patient preferences for addressing various MS symptoms. Methods This study was conducted at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. We developed a national online survey of MS patients and neurologists to estimate the value each group places on treating specific MS symptoms. Each respondent was presented with two randomly selected scenarios with different symptoms and treatments. MS patients were asked about their own preferences, whereas neurologists were asked to consider what a patient of theirs would do or think in each scenario. We used a bidding game approach to elicit respondents’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the treatments. Results To treat mobility alone, WTP for MS patients averaged US$410–US$520 per month, depending on the scenario. For paired symptoms, MS patients would pay most to treat mobility and upper limb function (US$525/month) or mobility and cognition (US$514/month), somewhat less to treat mobility and eyesight (US$445/month), and least to treat mobility and fatigue (US$371/month). Patient WTP values increased with income and education. Neurologists believed their patients would be willing to pay US$216–US$249 per month to treat mobility alone, depending on the scenario. For paired symptoms, neurologists believed patients would pay most to treat mobility and fatigue (US$263/month) and least to treat mobility and upper limb function (US$177/month). Conclusion Our findings suggest MS patients may value one outcome (e.g., improved arm and hand coordination) over another (e.g., less fatigue). Further, MS patients and neurologists may rank the importance of treating various symptoms differently. Given this potential mismatch, it is crucial for MS patients and their clinicians to discuss treatment priorities that take into account patient preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Pei-Jung Lin & Cayla J. Saret & Peter J. Neumann & Eileen A. Sandberg & Joshua T. Cohen, 2016. "Assessing the Value of Treatment to Address Various Symptoms Associated with Multiple Sclerosis: Results from a Contingent Valuation Study," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(12), pages 1255-1265, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0435-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0435-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-016-0435-7
    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/s40273-016-0435-7?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. 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.
    2. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16, January.
    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. Laia Soler & Nicolas Borzykowski, 2021. "The costs of celiac disease: a contingent valuation in Switzerland," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1487-1505, 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. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.
    2. Brouwer, Roy & Bateman, Ian J., 2005. "Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 591-611, May.
    3. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of ‘reference goods’ in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to ‘construct’ their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332, December.
    4. Zoë Philips & David K. Whynes & Mark Avis, 2006. "Testing the construct validity of willingness to pay valuations using objective information about risk and health benefit," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 195-204, February.
    5. Sylvia Brandt & Felipe Vásquez & Michael Hanemann, 2008. "Designing Contingent Valuation Scenarios for Environmental Health: The Case of Childhood Asthma," Working Papers 11-2008, Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Concepción.
    6. Richard D. Smith, 2006. "It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 281-293, March.
    7. Semra Ozdemir, 2015. "Improving the Validity of Stated-Preference Data in Health Research: The Potential of the Time-to-Think Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(3), pages 247-255, June.
    8. Peter J. Neumann & Joshua T. Cohen & James K. Hammitt & Thomas W. Concannon & Hannah R. Auerbach & ChiHui Fang & David M. Kent, 2012. "Willingness‐to‐pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 238-251, March.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Waibel, Hermann & Garming, Hildegard, 2007. "Pesticides And Farmer Health In Nicaragua: A Willingness To Pay Approach," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Göttingen 2007 7, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    13. Hildegard Garming & Hermann Waibel, 2009. "Pesticides and farmer health in Nicaragua: a willingness-to-pay approach to evaluation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(2), pages 125-133, May.
    14. Rinaldo Brau & M. Lippi Bruni & Am Pinna, 2004. "Public vs private demand for covering long term care expenditures," Working Paper CRENoS 200408, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    15. Garming, H. & Waibel, H., 2007. "Willingness to pay to avoid health risks from pesticides, a case study from Nicaragua," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 42, March.
    16. David Whynes & Emma Frew & Jane Wolstenholme, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay and Demand Curves: A Comparison of Results Obtained Using Different Elicitation Formats," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 369-386, December.
    17. Garming, Hildegard & Waibel, Hermann, 2006. "Willingness To Pay To Avoid Health Risks From Pesticides, A Case Study From Nicaragua," 46th Annual Conference, Giessen, Germany, October 4-6, 2006 14968, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    18. Smith, Richard D., 2005. "Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 515-529, May.
    19. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    20. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.

    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:34:y:2016:i:12:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0435-7. 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.