IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/61197.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New findings from the TTO for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a QALY

Author

Listed:
  • Attema, Arthur
  • Krol, Marieke
  • van Exel, Job
  • Brouwer, Werner

Abstract

Willingness to pay (WTP) elicitations suffer from various methodological problems. This paper tests a recently proposed alternative approach to value WTP for health, making use of trade-offs between income and lifetime or quality of life. We apply three experimental elicitation procedures and analyze the responses under an additive and a multiplicative utility function over health and income. We report several interesting results. First, the data are highly skewed, but if we trim the 5% lowest and highest values, we obtain plausible WTP estimates. Second, the results differ considerably between procedures, indicating that WTP estimates are sensitive to the assumed utility function. Third, respondents appear to be loss averse for both health and money, which is consistent with assumptions from prospect theory. Finally, our results also indicate that respondents are more willing to trade quality of life than life years.

Suggested Citation

  • Attema, Arthur & Krol, Marieke & van Exel, Job & Brouwer, Werner, 2014. "New findings from the TTO for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a QALY," MPRA Paper 61197, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:61197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/61197/1/MPRA_paper_61197.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    2. Domeij David & Johannesson Magnus, 2006. "Consumption and Health," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-30, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Karl Claxton & Mike Paulden & Hugh Gravelle & Werner Brouwer & Anthony J. Culyer, 2011. "Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health‐care technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 2-15, January.
    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. Hareth Al-Janabi & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer & Joanna Coast, 2016. "A Framework for Including Family Health Spillovers in Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 176-186, February.
    2. Pieter van Baal & Meg Perry‐Duxbury & Pieter Bakx & Matthijs Versteegh & Eddy van Doorslaer & Werner Brouwer, 2019. "A cost‐effectiveness threshold based on the marginal returns of cardiovascular hospital spending," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, January.
    3. Pieter van Baal & David Meltzer & Werner Brouwer, 2016. "Future Costs, Fixed Healthcare Budgets, and the Decision Rules of Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 237-248, February.
    4. van Baal, Pieter & Morton, Alec & Severens, Johan L., 2018. "Health care input constraints and cost effectiveness analysis decision rules," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 59-64.
    5. Matthijs M. Versteegh & Isaac Corro Ramos & Nasuh C. Buyukkaramikli & Amir Ansaripour & Vivian T. Reckers-Droog & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2019. "Severity-Adjusted Probability of Being Cost Effective," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(9), pages 1155-1163, September.
    6. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    7. Hammitt, James K., 2022. "Prevention, Treatment, and Palliative Care: The Relative Value of Health Improvements under Alternative Evaluation Frameworks," TSE Working Papers 22-1339, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    8. 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.
    9. Kools, Lieke & Knoef, Marike, 2019. "Health and consumption preferences; estimating the health state dependence of utility using equivalence scales," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 46-62.
    10. Wei Zhang & Aslam Anis, 2014. "Health-Related Productivity Loss: NICE to Recognize Soon, Good to Discuss Now," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 425-427, May.
    11. Bishop, Richard C., 2018. "Warm Glow, Good Feelings, and Contingent Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    12. 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.
    13. Hamraz Mokri & Pieter Baal & Maureen Rutten-van Mölken, 2025. "The impact of different perspectives on the cost-effectiveness of remote patient monitoring for patients with heart failure in different European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(1), pages 71-85, February.
    14. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon & Patrick Peretti-Watel & Valérie Seror, 2018. "Discounting health and money: New evidence using a more robust method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 117-140, April.
    15. Liesbet Wetering & Job Exel & Ana Bobinac & Werner Brouwer, 2015. "Valuing QALYs in Relation to Equity Considerations Using a Discrete Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(12), pages 1289-1300, December.
    16. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Stuart Carroll, 2011. "Value-based pricing for pharmaceuticals: Its role, specification and prospects in a newly devolved NHS," Working Papers 060cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    17. Shantanu Bagchi & James Feigenbaum, 2014. "Is Smoking a Fiscal Good?," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 17(1), pages 170-190, January.
    18. Susanne Mayer & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & Dirk Ruwaard & Silvia M. A. A. Evers, 2017. "Health-Related Resource-Use Measurement Instruments for Intersectoral Costs and Benefits in the Education and Criminal Justice Sectors," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(9), pages 895-908, September.
    19. Arthur E. Attema & Marieke Krol & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2018. "New findings from the time trade-off for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 277-291, March.
    20. Claxton, Karl & Asaria, Miqdad & Chansa, Collins & Jamison, Julian & Lomas, James & Ochalek, Jessica & Paulden, Mike, 2019. "Accounting for timing when assessing health-related policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100038, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    loss aversion; time tradeoff method; QALY; utility of health and wealth; willingness to pay;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:pra:mprapa:61197. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.