The impact of information on patient preferences in different delivery patterns: A contingent valuation study of prescription versus OTC drugs
Objectives Our analysis assessed the impact of information on patients' preferences in prescription versus over-the-counter (OTC) delivery systems.Methods A contingent valuation (CV) study was implemented, randomly assigning 534 lay people into the receipt of limited or extended information concerning new influenza drugs. In each information arm, people answered two questions: the first asked about willingness to pay (WTP) for the new prescription drug; the second asked about WTP for the same drug sold OTC.Results We show that WTP is higher for the OTC scenario and that the level of information plays a significant role in the evaluation of the OTC scenario, with more information being associated with an increase in the WTP. In contrast, the level of information provided has no impact on WTP for prescription medicine. Thus, for the kind of drug considered here (i.e. safe, not requiring medical supervision), a switch to OTC status can be expected to be all the more beneficial, as the patient is provided with more information concerning the capability of the drug.Conclusions Our results shed light on one of the most challenging issues that health policy makers are currently faced with, namely the threat of a bird flu pandemic. Drug delivery is a critical component of pandemic influenza preparedness. Furthermore, the congruence of our results with the agency and demand theories provides an important test of the validity of using WTP based on CV methods.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
- Cam Donaldson & Ruth Thomas & David Torgerson, 1997. "Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 79-84.
- Lee, Stephanie J. & Neumann, Peter J. & Churchill, W. Hallowell & Cannon, Marie E. & Weinstein, Milton C. & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "Patients' willingness to pay for autologous blood donation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-12, April.
- Gianfranco DOMENIGHETTI, 1999. "Does Provision of an Evidence-Based Information Change Public Willingness to Accept a Screening Test ?," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'Econométrie et d'Economie politique (DEEP) 9901, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, DEEP.
- Johansson,Per-Olov, 1995. "Evaluating Health Risks," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521478786, December.
- Mark Yuying An, 2000. "A Semiparametric Distribution for Willingness to Pay and Statistical Inference with Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 487-500.
- Richard Frank & Karine Lamiraud, 2008.
"Choice, Price Competition and Complexity in Markets for Health Insurance,"
NBER Working Papers
13817, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Frank, Richard G. & Lamiraud, Karine, 2009. "Choice, price competition and complexity in markets for health insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 550-562, August.
- Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B.L. & Stoll, John R., 1985.
"Public Environmental Amenity Benefits Of Private Land: The Case Of Prime Agricultural Land,"
Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(01), July.
- Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B. L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(01), pages 139-149, July.
- Trudy Ann Cameron & Michelle D. James, 1986. "The Determinants of Value for a Recreational Fishing Day: Estimates from a Contingent Valuation Survey," UCLA Economics Working Papers 405, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Payne, John W & Schkade, David A. & Desvousges, William H. & Aultman, Chris, 2000. "Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 95-115, July.
- Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 1997. "Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 699-707, March.
- Jan Abel Olsen & Richard D. Smith, 2001. "Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 39-52.
- Protière, Christel & Donaldson, Cam & Luchini, Stéphane & Paul Moatti, Jean & Shackley, Phil, 2004. "The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(7), pages 1257-1269, April.
- Mullahy, John, 1998. "Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health econometrics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-281, June.
- Johansson,Per-Olov, 1995. "Evaluating Health Risks," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521472852, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:93:y:2009:i:2-3:p:102-110. 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: (Dana Niculescu)or ()
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.