IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v6y2011i03p405-433_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study

Author

Listed:
  • Mentzakis, Emmanouil
  • Stefanowska, Patricia
  • Hurley, Jeremiah

Abstract

Policy debate about funding criteria for drugs used to treat rare, orphan diseases is gaining prominence. This study presents evidence from a discrete choice experiment using a convenience sample of university students to investigate individual preferences regarding public funding for drugs used to treat rare diseases and common diseases. This pilot study finds that: other things equal, the respondents do not prefer to have the government spend more for drugs used to treat rare diseases; that respondents are not willing to pay more per life year gained for a rare disease than a common disease; and that respondents weigh relevant attributes of the coverage decisions (e.g. costs, disease severity and treatment effectiveness) similarly for both rare and common diseases. The results confirm the importance of severity and treatment effectiveness in preferences for public funding. Although this is the first study of its kind, the results send a cautionary message regarding the special treatment of orphan drugs in coverage decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Stefanowska, Patricia & Hurley, Jeremiah, 2011. "A discrete choice experiment investigating preferences for funding drugs used to treat orphan diseases: an exploratory study," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(03), pages 405-433, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:6:y:2011:i:03:p:405-433_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1744133110000344
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0575-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2014. "Does attribute cut-off elicitation affect choice consistency? Contrasting hypothetical and real-money choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 16-29.
    3. Mortimer, Duncan & Peacock, Stuart, 2012. "Social welfare and the Affordable Care Act: Is it ever optimal to set aside comparative cost?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1156-1162.
    4. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    5. Christopher McCabe & Mike Paulden & James O'Mahony & Richard Edlin & Anthony Culyer, 2014. "Life at a premium: considering an end-of-life premium in Value Based Reimbursement," Working Papers 1407, Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds.
    6. Monika Wagner & Hanane Khoury & Jacob Willet & Donna Rindress & Mireille Goetghebeur, 2016. "Can the EVIDEM Framework Tackle Issues Raised by Evaluating Treatments for Rare Diseases: Analysis of Issues and Policies, and Context-Specific Adaptation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 285-301, March.
    7. Mike Paulden & Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Christopher McCabe, 2015. "Value-Based Reimbursement Decisions for Orphan Drugs: A Scoping Review and Decision Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 255-269, March.
    8. LUYTEN, Jeroen & KESSELS, Roselinde & GOOS, Peter & BEUTELS, Philippe, 2013. "Public preferences for prioritizing preventive and curative health care interventions: A discrete choice experiment," Working Papers 2013032, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics.
    9. Jennifer Whitty & Emily Lancsar & Kylie Rixon & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, vol. 7(4), pages 365-386, December.
    10. repec:spr:sochwe:v:49:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s00355-017-1053-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Desser, Arna S., 2013. "Prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: A survey of preferences of Norwegian doctors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 56-62.
    12. repec:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:7:p:731-744 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. repec:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-016-0002-3 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    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:cup:hecopl:v:6:y:2011:i:03:p:405-433_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keith Waters). General contact details of provider: http://journals.cambridge.org/jid_HEP .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.