Adriënne H Rotteveel1,2,3, Mattijs S Lambooij4, Nicolaas P A Zuithoff5, Job van Exel6,7, Karel G M Moons5,8, G Ardine de Wit4,5. 1. Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. adrienne.rotteveel@rivm.nl. 2. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. adrienne.rotteveel@rivm.nl. 3. Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. adrienne.rotteveel@rivm.nl. 4. Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), PO Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 5. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 6. Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Cochrane Netherlands, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to review the available evidence on the disparity between willingness to accept (WTA) and willingness to pay (WTP) for healthcare goods and services. METHODS: A tiered approach consisting of (1) a systematic review, (2) an aggregate data meta-analysis, and (3) an individual participant data meta-analysis was used. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Scisearch, and Econlit were searched for articles reporting both WTA and WTP for healthcare goods and services. Individual participant data were requested from the authors of the included studies. RESULTS: Thirteen papers, reporting WTA and WTP from 19 experiments/subgroups, were included in the review. The WTA/WTP ratios reported in these papers, varied from 0.60 to 4.01, with means of 1.73 (median 1.31) for 15 estimates of the mean and 1.58 (median 1.00) for nine estimates of the median. Individual data obtained from six papers, covering 71.2% of the subjects included in the review, yielded an unadjusted WTA/WTP ratio of 1.86 (95% confidence interval 1.52-2.28) and a WTA/WTP ratio adjusted for age, sex, and income of 1.70 (95% confidence interval 1.42-2.02). Income category and age had a statistically significant effect on the WTA/WTP ratio. The approach to handling zero WTA and WTP values has a considerable impact on the WTA/WTP ratio found. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study imply that losses in healthcare goods and services are valued differently from gains (ratio > 1), but that the degree of disparity found depends on the method used to obtain the WTA/WTP ratio, including the approach to zero responses. Irrespective of the method used, the ratios found in our meta-analysis are smaller than the ratios found in previous meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to review the available evidence on the disparity between willingness to accept (WTA) and willingness to pay (WTP) for healthcare goods and services. METHODS: A tiered approach consisting of (1) a systematic review, (2) an aggregate data meta-analysis, and (3) an individual participant data meta-analysis was used. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Scisearch, and Econlit were searched for articles reporting both WTA and WTP for healthcare goods and services. Individual participant data were requested from the authors of the included studies. RESULTS: Thirteen papers, reporting WTA and WTP from 19 experiments/subgroups, were included in the review. The WTA/WTP ratios reported in these papers, varied from 0.60 to 4.01, with means of 1.73 (median 1.31) for 15 estimates of the mean and 1.58 (median 1.00) for nine estimates of the median. Individual data obtained from six papers, covering 71.2% of the subjects included in the review, yielded an unadjusted WTA/WTP ratio of 1.86 (95% confidence interval 1.52-2.28) and a WTA/WTP ratio adjusted for age, sex, and income of 1.70 (95% confidence interval 1.42-2.02). Income category and age had a statistically significant effect on the WTA/WTP ratio. The approach to handling zero WTA and WTP values has a considerable impact on the WTA/WTP ratio found. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study imply that losses in healthcare goods and services are valued differently from gains (ratio > 1), but that the degree of disparity found depends on the method used to obtain the WTA/WTP ratio, including the approach to zero responses. Irrespective of the method used, the ratios found in our meta-analysis are smaller than the ratios found in previous meta-analyses.
Authors: Claudine de Meijer; Werner Brouwer; Marc Koopmanschap; Bernard van den Berg; Job van Exel Journal: Health Econ Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Janneke P C Grutters; Alfons G H Kessels; Carmen D Dirksen; Debby van Helvoort-Postulart; Lucien J C Anteunis; Manuela A Joore Journal: Value Health Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Levison Stanely Chiwaula; Gowokani Chijere Chirwa; Fabian Cataldo; Atupele Kapito-Tembo; Mina C Hosseinipour; Monique van Lettow; Hannock Tweya; Virginia Kayoyo; Blessings Khangamwa-Kaunda; Florence Kasende; Clement Trapence; Salem Gugsa; Nora E Rosenberg; Michael Eliya; Sam Phiri Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Esmée C A van der Sar; Willem R Keusters; Ludwike W M van Kalmthout; Arthur J A T Braat; Bart de Keizer; Geert W J Frederix; Anko Kooistra; Jules Lavalaye; Marnix G E H Lam; Harm H E van Melick Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2022-08-13