IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v21y2023i1d10.1007_s40258-022-00764-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Features of Fertility Treatment do Patients Value? Price Elasticity and Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Keller

    (University of New South Wales Sydney)

  • Willings Botha

    (IQVIA, The Point)

  • Georgina M. Chambers

    (University of New South Wales Sydney)

Abstract

Background Infertility is a medical condition affecting an estimated 186 million people worldwide. Medically assisted fertility treatments allow many of these individuals to have a baby. Insights about preferences of patients who have experienced fertility treatment should be used to inform funding policies and treatment configurations that best reflect the patients’ voice and the value of fertility treatment to patients. Objective To explore the preferences for fertility treatment attributes of infertile women who had previously undergone or were undergoing fertility treatments—ex post perspective. Methods We used data from a stated-preference discrete choice experiment (DCE) among 376 Australian women who had undergone or were undergoing fertility treatment. Respondents chose their preferred treatment choices in 12 hypothetical treatment choice scenarios described by seven attributes (success rates, side effects, counselling/peer support, treatment journey, continuity of care, availability of experimental treatment and out-of-pocket cost). We estimated random parameter logit (RPL) and latent class (LC) models that accounted for preference heterogeneity. The results were used to derive price elasticities of demand and marginal willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for the treatment attributes explored within the DCE survey. Results Income level did not have a significant effect on marginal WTP for fertility treatment attributes. The demand for fertility treatment from an ex post perspective was found to be highly inelastic (treatment cost changes had almost no impact on demand). Success rates and out-of-pocket costs were significant and important predictors of individuals’ treatment choices conditional on the attributes and levels included in the study. These were followed by counselling/peer support, side effects, treatment journey, continuity of care, and availability of experimental treatment, in that order. Respondents were willing to pay $383–$524 per one percentage point increase in the treatment success rate and over $2000 and over $3500 to avoid moderate and significant side effects, respectively (values are reported in AU$). Latent class models revealed that the majority of respondents (51%) were risk-averse success-rate seekers. Conclusion Infertile women who had previously undergone or were undergoing fertility treatment valued fertility treatment highly as reflected by highly price-inelastic demand. Success rate of treatment and out-of-pocket costs were the most important attributes and largely determined patients’ WTP for fertility treatment relative to the attributes and levels used in the study. While further research should investigate the price sensitivity of women who have not experienced fertility treatment, these results might explain why women continue fertility treatment once they have commenced despite their financial capacity to pay. Future research should also determine patients’ price elasticities for a fertility treatment program with multiple treatment cycles.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Keller & Willings Botha & Georgina M. Chambers, 2023. "What Features of Fertility Treatment do Patients Value? Price Elasticity and Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 91-107, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00764-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-022-00764-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-022-00764-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-022-00764-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    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. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter & von Wyl, Viktor & Beck, Konstantin & Weber, Andreas, 2023. "The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    2. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    3. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    4. David M. Meads & John L. O’Dwyer & Claire T. Hulme & Phani Chintakayala & Karen Vinall-Collier & Michael I. Bennett, 2017. "Patient Preferences for Pain Management in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(5), pages 643-651, October.
    5. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Van Oijstaeijen, Wito & Van Passel, Steven & Back, Phil & Cools, Jan, 2022. "The politics of green infrastructure: A discrete choice experiment with Flemish local decision-makers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    7. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    8. Jennifer A Whitty & Simon Stewart & Melinda J Carrington & Alicia Calderone & Thomas Marwick & John D Horowitz & Henry Krum & Patricia M Davidson & Peter S Macdonald & Christopher Reid & Paul A Scuffh, 2013. "Patient Preferences and Willingness-To-Pay for a Home or Clinic Based Program of Chronic Heart Failure Management: Findings from the Which? Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    9. Ali Ardeshiri & Spring Sampson & Joffre Swait, 2019. "Seasonality Effects on Consumers Preferences Over Quality Attributes of Different Beef Products," Papers 1902.02419, arXiv.org.
    10. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    11. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    12. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    13. Varela, Elsa & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Soliño, Mario, 2014. "Understanding the heterogeneity of social preferences for fire prevention management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 91-104.
    14. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    15. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2011. "Exploiting cut-off information to incorporate context effect: a discrete choice experiment on small fruits in a Alpine region," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114646, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    17. Goedele Van den Broeck & Kaat Van Hoyweghen & Miet Maertens, 2016. "Employment Conditions in the Senegalese Horticultural Export Industry: A Worker Perspective," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 34(2), pages 301-319, March.
    18. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    19. Jochen Hartl & Roland Herrmann, 2009. "Do they always say no? German consumers and second‐generation GM foods," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(5), pages 551-560, September.
    20. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "End-of-life healthcare expenditure: Testing economic explanations using a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 30-38.

    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:spr:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00764-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.