Ellen Wolff1, Sofie Larsson2, Mikael Svensson2. 1. Public Health Analysis and Data Management, Public Health Agency of Sweden, Solna, Sweden; Health Economics and Policy, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Electronic address: ellen.wolff@folkhalsomyndigheten.se. 2. Public Health Analysis and Data Management, Public Health Agency of Sweden, Solna, Sweden; Health Economics and Policy, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate whether there was a difference in willingness to pay (WTP) between prevention and treatment for health benefits of equal magnitude. METHODS: We used a web-based survey instrument in a sample of the Swedish general population to perform a contingent valuation study assessing the WTP for prevention and treatment. We analyzed the WTP as a continuous variable using a two-part regression model to adjust for a mass point around 0 and a skewed distribution among respondents with a positive WTP. RESULTS: The study found that people were less willing, on average, to pay at all for prevention than treatment, but those who were willing to pay for prevention had a higher WTP than for treatment. The latter effect was more substantial, and in total mean WTP for prevention was about 85% higher than for treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study contribute to the ongoing discussion on the appropriate cost-effectiveness thresholds by adding prevention as a parameter affecting the demand-side value of health improvements. As such, it can provide support to decision makers in healthcare and in health promotion priority setting.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate whether there was a difference in willingness to pay (WTP) between prevention and treatment for health benefits of equal magnitude. METHODS: We used a web-based survey instrument in a sample of the Swedish general population to perform a contingent valuation study assessing the WTP for prevention and treatment. We analyzed the WTP as a continuous variable using a two-part regression model to adjust for a mass point around 0 and a skewed distribution among respondents with a positive WTP. RESULTS: The study found that people were less willing, on average, to pay at all for prevention than treatment, but those who were willing to pay for prevention had a higher WTP than for treatment. The latter effect was more substantial, and in total mean WTP for prevention was about 85% higher than for treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study contribute to the ongoing discussion on the appropriate cost-effectiveness thresholds by adding prevention as a parameter affecting the demand-side value of health improvements. As such, it can provide support to decision makers in healthcare and in health promotion priority setting.