IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/ihewps/2022_007.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The importance of perspective when eliciting preferences for health – A study of the willingness to pay for hepatitis C treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Olofsson, Sara

    (IHE - The Swedish Institute for Health Economics)

  • Hjalte, Frida

    (IHE - The Swedish Institute for Health Economics)

  • Persson, Ulf

    (IHE - The Swedish Institute for Health Economics)

  • Lindgren, Peter

    (IHE - The Swedish Institute for Health Economics)

Abstract

This report present the result of a study of the willingness to pay (WTP) for hepatitis C treatment from different perspectives, including who you pay for (yourself, others, yourself and others) and when you pay (when at risk, when assuming having hepatitis C). The study shows that the WTP varies significantly depending on the perspective used and shows the importance of considering the perspective used when designing and interpreting preference studies. Background: The second generation antiviral therapy for individuals with hepatitis C (HCV) has been found to be a cost-effective treatment, but would result in a high budget impact. The Swedish national government made an agreement with the regions to help funding the new treatment, implying a societal perspective where it is relevant to search for the consumer value of treatment. The aim of this study is to estimate the value of HCV treatment by performing a willingness to pay (WTP) study from different perspectives. Methods: The study is performed as a web-based survey of a sample from the Swedish general population (n=513), using the contingent valuation (CV) approach. A framework of perspectives was applied with respect to whom to pay for; her-or himself only (personal perspective), others only (social perspective), both her- or himself and others. Results: The personal perspective resulted in the highest WTP estimates while the lowest WTP estimates was found for the social perspective. The WTP per HCV treatment varied between SEK 0.2 million and SEK 38 million. The WTP estimates were similar between the ex post perspective and ex ante perspective. Respondents believing that others would pay less than themselves had a higher WTP in all scenarios except the scenario with the social perspective. Conclusion: This study shows that the value appears to be higher and more valid when individuals are asked to pay for themselves. This value may be driven by a will to secure access to the treatment when others are willing to pay less.

Suggested Citation

  • Olofsson, Sara & Hjalte, Frida & Persson, Ulf & Lindgren, Peter, 2022. "The importance of perspective when eliciting preferences for health – A study of the willingness to pay for hepatitis C treatment," IHE Report / IHE Rapport 2022:7, IHE - The Swedish Institute for Health Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:ihewps:2022_007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ihe.se/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/IHE-Report-2022_7_.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & O'Conor, Richard M, 1996. "The Value of Private Safety versus the Value of Public Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 263-275, November.
    2. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    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. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Gelsomina Catalano, 2020. "Should governments fund basic science? Evidence from a willingness-to-pay experiment in five universities," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-33, January.
    2. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    3. Henrik Andersson & James K. Hammitt & Kristian Sundström, 2015. "Willingness to Pay and QALYs: What Can We Learn about Valuing Foodborne Risk?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 727-752, September.
    4. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan, 2013. "Exploring heterogeneity in the value of a statistical life: Cause of death v. risk perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 143-155.
    5. Jytte Seested Nielsen & Susan Chilton & Hugh Metcalf, 2019. "Improving the risk–risk trade-off method for use in safety project appraisal responses," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(1), pages 61-86, January.
    6. Sara Olofsson & Ulf G. Gerdtham & Lars Hultkrantz & Ulf Persson, 2019. "Dread and Risk Elimination Premium for the Value of a Statistical Life," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2391-2407, November.
    7. S. Olofsson & U.-G. Gerdtham & L. Hultkrantz & U. Persson, 2019. "Value of a QALY and VSI estimated with the chained approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(7), pages 1063-1077, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Henrik Andersson & Mikael Svensson, 2008. "Cognitive ability and scale bias in the contingent valuation method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 481-495, April.
    10. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    11. Björn Vollan & Karla Henning & Deniza Staewa, 2017. "Do campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase donations? Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 500-518, October.
    12. Carol Vargas & Ramón Rosales, 2006. "Valoración Económica De La Prevención Pública De La Malaria En Los Hogares Del Caquetá," Documentos CEDE 3749, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    13. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2014. "Valuing environmental quality in actual travel time savings – The Haningeleden road project in Stockholm," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 349-356.
    14. Otrachshenko, Vladimir & Tyurina, Elena & Nagapetyan, Artur, 2022. "The economic value of the Glass Beach: Contingent valuation and life satisfaction approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    15. Shokhrukh-Mirzo Jalilov, 2017. "Value of Clean Water Resources: Estimating the Water Quality Improvement in Metro Manila, Philippines," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    17. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    18. Andy Choi & Franco Papandrea & Jeff Bennett, 2007. "Assessing cultural values: developing an attitudinal scale," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 31(4), pages 311-335, December.
    19. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    20. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    willingness to pay; WTP; hepatitis c; perspective; risk; hälsoekonomi; health economics;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:ihewps:2022_007. 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: Annette Persson Dietmann (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ihe.se/ .

    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.