Literature DB >> 24903199

The monetary value of patient-centred care: results from a discrete choice experiment in Dutch fertility care.

Aleida G Huppelschoten1, Eva W Verkerk2, John Appleby3, Hans Groenewoud4, Eddy M M Adang4, Willianne L D M Nelen2, Jan A M Kremer2.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What are patients and insurers willing to pay for different aspects of fertility care, with a particular focus on patient-centredness? SUMMARY ANSWER: In fertility care, both patients and health insurers place a high value on patient-centred factors, also when taking into account the effectiveness of fertility care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: The benefit patients derive from fertility treatment may arise from several aspects of their care, such as the effectiveness, safety or patient-centred factors. Patient-centredness is recognized as an important, multi-dimensional concept, including domains on the organizational level (e.g. information provision) and on the human level (e.g. patient involvement). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: We performed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within 32 Dutch fertility clinics and five large health insurance companies in the Netherlands. A total of 996 infertile patients who underwent at least one treatment cycle for their fertility problem and 84 healthcare insurers participated in the study which was executed in the summer of 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: All participating patients and health insurers completed a DCE about their preferences in fertility care regarding the effectiveness, patient-centredness of care and additional costs. Logistic regression analysis was subsequently used to determine what both patients and health insurers were willing to pay for a one-step increase in patient-centred care and 1% higher pregnancy rates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Five hundred and fifty patients (55.2%) and 45 healthcare insurers (53.6%) completed the DCE questionnaire. Patients were willing to pay a median amount of €463 for a relevant one-step increase in patient-centred care and €107 for 1% increase in pregnancy rates. Healthcare insurers' valuations were lower: €191 for more patient-centred care and €60 for 1% increase in pregnancy rates. The willingness-to-pay values depended on patients' age, patients' ethnicity, income, and treatment type and on health insurers' age. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: An important limitation of a DCE study is that other attributes, that were not included in our study, are relevant as well. Therefore, our study participants might make other choices in real life compared with our hypothetical DCE scenarios. We tried to prevent this potential bias by selecting the most important attributes from the literature, using the input of an expert panel and performing a pilot study to test the validity of our questionnaire. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: This study emphasizes the importance of patient-centredness aspects of care for both infertile patients and their insurers. Therefore, efforts by policymakers and clinicians to improve these aspects of care would increase the overall value patients derive from their fertility treatment. Moreover, although insurers placed a lower monetary value on patient-centredness aspects than patients, it is arguable that insurers' purchasing decisions should be guided by patient rather than insurer preferences. Finally, given the relatively high monetary value patients place on patient-centred aspects of their fertility care, there may be a willingness to allow for some optional co-payments for this quality of care dimension. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by Merck Sharp and Dohme, the Netherlands. No competing interests declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials NCT01834313.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  discrete choice experiment; health insurers; patient-centredness; preferences; willingness-to-pay

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24903199     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  8 in total

1.  What Features of Fertility Treatment do Patients Value? Price Elasticity and Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Elena Keller; Willings Botha; Georgina M Chambers
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Decision analysis about the cost-effectiveness of different in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer protocol under considering governments, hospitals, and patient.

Authors:  Wei Pan; Haiting Tu; Lei Jin; Cheng Hu; Yuehan Li; Renjie Wang; Weiming Huang; ShuJie Liao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.817

3.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Women's preferences concerning IVF treatment: a discrete choice experiment with particular focus on embryo transfer policy.

Authors:  S Cornelisse; M S Vos; H Groenewoud; S Mastenbroek; L Ramos; D D M Braat; P F M Stalmeier; K Fleischer
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2022-07-13

5.  Out-of-pocket payment and patients' treatment choice for assisted reproductive technology by household income: a conjoint analysis using an online social research panel in Japan.

Authors:  Eri Maeda; Seung Chik Jwa; Yukiyo Kumazawa; Kazuki Saito; Arisa Iba; Ayako Yanagisawa-Sugita; Akira Kuwahara; Hidekazu Saito; Yukihiro Terada; Takashi Fukuda; Osamu Ishihara; Yasuki Kobayashi
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 2.908

Review 6.  Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  Mark Harrison; Katherine Milbers; Marie Hudson; Nick Bansback
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Can a University Reproductive Medicine Centre Be Financed Under the Pre-Existing General Conditions in Germany?

Authors:  Thomas Hildebrandt; Nicola Oversohl; Ralf Dittrich; Laura Lotz; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael P Lux
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 2.915

Review 8.  Patient and Public Preferences for Coordinated Care in Switzerland: Development of a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Anna Nicolet; Clémence Perraudin; Joël Wagner; Ingrid Gilles; Nicolas Krucien; Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux; Joachim Marti
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 3.481

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.