Literature DB >> 12369235

Assessing preferences for prevention versus treatment using willingness to pay.

Phaedra S Corso1, James K Hammitt, John D Graham, Richard C Dicker, Sue J Goldie.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rising health care costs and limited resources necessitate trade-offs between resources allocated toward prevention and those toward treatment. Information from opinion polls suggests citizens favor spending a higher proportion of all health care dollars on prevention rather than treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the policy implications of willingness to pay (WTP) for use in cost-benefit analysis (CBA) as a method for capturing individual preferences for prevention and treatment in the context of resource allocation decisions.
METHODS: The authors recruited a random sample of 1456 US residents age 18 years and greater by telephone using random-digit dialing. The survey was designed as a 3-stage (phone-mail-phone) process and was conducted between December 1998 and March 1999. For all persons completing the survey (N = 1104), the authors 1st collected respondents' opinions about the costs and effectiveness of prevention versus treatment programs in general. Half of respondents were then asked to state their WTP for a hypothetical prevention scenario and half were asked to state their WTP for a hypothetical treatment scenario. Both scenarios were specific to the same health context and included an identical reduction in mortality risk.
RESULTS: WTP for treatment was significantly greater than WTP for prevention, $665 and $223, respectively. Prior opinions on the relative effectiveness afforded by preventive and treatment interventions moderately influenced the WTP estimates for persons randomized to either scenario. Prior opinions on costs had no significant effect on WTP estimates for either scenario. WTP significantly increased with age and household income in the full sample but was not significantly affected by gender or educational attainment.
CONCLUSIONS: The aggregated WTP responses from the prevention and treatment scenarios presented in our study would imply that treatment is more strongly preferred by society than prevention when the health context is the same and benefits of each are held constant. A better understanding is needed of the discrepancy between citizens' stated preferences for prevention (e.g., through polling) and our findings that they were willing to pay substantially more for treatment than for prevention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12369235     DOI: 10.1177/027298902237713

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  9 in total

Review 1.  Integration of PKPD relationships into benefit-risk analysis.

Authors:  Francesco Bellanti; Rob C van Wijk; Meindert Danhof; Oscar Della Pasqua
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 4.335

2.  Preferences for health outcomes associated with Group A Streptococcal disease and vaccination.

Authors:  Grace M Lee; Joshua A Salomon; Charlene Gay; James K Hammitt
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 3.186

3.  Paying for prevention: challenges to health insurance coverage for biomedical HIV prevention in the United States.

Authors:  Kristen Underhill
Journal:  Am J Law Med       Date:  2012

Review 4.  A systematic review of stated preference studies reporting public preferences for healthcare priority setting.

Authors:  Jennifer A Whitty; Emily Lancsar; Kylie Rixon; Xanthe Golenko; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  The impact of economic evaluation on quality management in spine surgery.

Authors:  Norbert Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Parental willingness to pay for child safety seats in Mashad, Iran.

Authors:  Lida Jarahi; Mojgan Karbakhsh; Arash Rashidian
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-05-08       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  A review of studies examining stated preferences for cancer screening.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Stephanie Van Bebber; Deborah Marshall; Judith Walsh; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2006-06-15       Impact factor: 2.830

8.  The economics of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease - a systematic review of economic evaluations.

Authors:  David Lb Schwappach; Till A Boluarte; Marc Suhrcke
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2007-05-14

9.  Prevention praised, cure preferred: results of between-subjects experimental studies comparing (monetary) appreciation for preventive and curative interventions.

Authors:  Ree M Meertens; Vivian M J Van de Gaar; Maitta Spronken; Nanne K de Vries
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 2.796

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.