IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0200139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of willingness to pay for expanded carrier screening among women and couples undergoing preconception carrier screening

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth V Clarke
  • Jennifer L Schneider
  • Frances Lynch
  • Tia L Kauffman
  • Michael C Leo
  • Ana G Rosales
  • John F Dickerson
  • Elizabeth Shuster
  • Benjamin S Wilfond
  • Katrina A B Goddard

Abstract

Background: Expanded carrier screening can provide risk information for numerous conditions. Understanding how individuals undergoing preconception expanded carrier screening value this information is important. The NextGen study evaluated the use of genome sequencing for expanded carrier screening and reporting secondary findings, and we measured participants’ willingness to pay for this approach to understand how it is valued by women and couples planning a pregnancy. Methods: We assessed 277 participants’ willingness to pay for genome sequencing reporting carrier results for 728 gene/condition pairs and results for 121 secondary findings. We explored the association between attitudes and demographic factors and willingness to pay for expanded carrier screening using genome sequencing and conducted interviews with 58 of these participants to probe the reasoning behind their preferences. Results: Most participants were willing to pay for expanded carrier screening using genome sequencing. Willingness to pay was associated with income level and religiosity, but not risk status for a condition in the carrier panel. Participants willing to pay nothing or a small amount cited issues around financial resources, whereas those willing to pay higher amounts were motivated by “peace of mind” from carrier results. Conclusion: Women and couples planning a pregnancy value genome sequencing. The potentially high out-of-pocket cost of this service could result in healthcare disparities, since maximum amounts that participants were willing to pay were higher than a typical copay and related to income.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth V Clarke & Jennifer L Schneider & Frances Lynch & Tia L Kauffman & Michael C Leo & Ana G Rosales & John F Dickerson & Elizabeth Shuster & Benjamin S Wilfond & Katrina A B Goddard, 2018. "Assessment of willingness to pay for expanded carrier screening among women and couples undergoing preconception carrier screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200139
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200139
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200139&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0200139?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    2. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Christophe Muller & Erik Schokkaert, 2013. "Equivalent Income And Fair Evaluation Of Health Care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 711-729, June.
    3. Hannah E Carter & Deborah J Schofield & Rupendra Shrestha, 2016. "The Productivity Costs of Premature Mortality Due to Cancer in Australia: Evidence from a Microsimulation Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    5. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "Use, option and externality values: are contingent valuation studies in health care mis‐specified?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 861-869, August.
    6. Panos Pashardes & Nicoletta Pashourtidou, 2011. "Consumer welfare from publicly supplemented private goods: age and income effects on demand for health care," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 865-885, December.
    7. Richard D. Smith, 2008. "Contingent valuation in health care: does it matter how the ‘good’ is described?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 607-617, May.
    8. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    9. Christy Pu & Yu-Chen Tseng & Gau-Jun Tang & Yen-Hsiung Lin & Chien-Heng Lin & I-Jen Wang, 2021. "Perception and Willingness to Maintain Continuity of Care by Parents of Children with Asthma in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-11, March.
    10. Trine Bergmo & Silje Wangberg, 2007. "Patients’ willingness to pay for electronic communication with their general practitioner," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(2), pages 105-110, June.
    11. Markus König & Christian Pfarr & Peter Zweifel, 2014. "Mutual Altruism: Evidence from Alzheimer Patients and Their Spouse Caregivers," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 141-160, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    12. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    13. Alan Shiell & Lisa Gold, 2003. "If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 909-919, November.
    14. Jamison Pike & Scott D. Grosse, 2018. "Friction Cost Estimates of Productivity Costs in Cost-of-Illness Studies in Comparison with Human Capital Estimates: A Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 765-778, December.
    15. Smith, Richard D. & Richardson, Jeff, 2005. "Can we estimate the `social' value of a QALY?: Four core issues to resolve," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 77-84, September.
    16. Juan Oliva & Félix Lobo & Julio López-Bastida & Néboa Zozaya & Rosa Romay, 2005. "Indirect costs of cervical and breast cancers in Spain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 309-313, December.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:96-106 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Tambor, Marzena & Pavlova, Milena & Rechel, Bernd & Golinowska, Stanisława & Sowada, Christoph & Groot, Wim, 2014. "Willingness to pay for publicly financed health care services in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence from six countries based on a contingent valuation method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 193-201.
    19. Cawley, John, 2008. "Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 281-292, July.
    20. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    21. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.

    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:plo:pone00:0200139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.