IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v22y2024i2d10.1007_s40258-023-00846-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should Commercial Diagnostic Testing Be Stimulated or Discouraged? Analyzing Willingness-to-Pay and Market Externalities of Three Commercial Diagnostic Tests in The Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Niek Stadhouders

    (Radboud University Medical Center)

  • Ella Vliet

    (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM))

  • Anne E.M. Brabers

    (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research)

  • Wieteke Dijk

    (Radboud University Medical Center)

  • Suzanne Onstwedder

    (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM))

Abstract

Introduction Consumers may purchase commercial diagnostic tests (CDT) without prior doctor consultation. This paper analyzes three CDT markets—commercial cholesterol tests (CCT), direct-to-consumer genetic health tests (DGT) and total body scans (TBS)—in the context of the universal, collectively financed health care system of the Netherlands. Methods An online willingness-to-pay (WTP) questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of 1500 Dutch consumers. Using contingent valuation (CV) methodology, an array of bids for three self-tests were presented to the respondents. The results were extrapolated to the Dutch population and compared to current prices and follow-up medical utilization, allowing analysis from a societal perspective. Results Overall, 880 of 1500 respondents completed the questionnaire (response rate 59%). Of the respondents, 26–44% were willing to pay a positive amount for the CDT. Willingness-to-pay was correlated to age and household income, but not to health status or prior experience with these tests. At mean current prices of €29 for CCT, €229 for DGT and €1,650 for TBS, 3.3%, 2.5%, and 1.1%, were willing to purchase a CCT, DGT, and TBS, respectively. All three CDT resulted in net costs to the health system, estimated at €5, €16, and €44 per test, respectively. Reducing volumes by 90,000 CCTs (19%), 19,000 DGTs (5%) and 4,000 TBSs (2.5%) in 2019 would optimize welfare. Conclusion Most respondents were unwilling to consume CDT at any price or only if the CDT were provided for free. However, for a small group of consumers, societal costs exceed private benefits. Therefore, CDT regulation could provide small welfare gains.

Suggested Citation

  • Niek Stadhouders & Ella Vliet & Anne E.M. Brabers & Wieteke Dijk & Suzanne Onstwedder, 2024. "Should Commercial Diagnostic Testing Be Stimulated or Discouraged? Analyzing Willingness-to-Pay and Market Externalities of Three Commercial Diagnostic Tests in The Netherlands," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 193-207, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:22:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00846-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-023-00846-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-023-00846-0
    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/s40258-023-00846-0?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. Lauraine G. Chestnut & L. Robin Keller & William E. Lambert & Robert D. Rowe, 1996. "Measuring Heart Patients' Willingness to Pay for Changes in Angina Symptoms," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 65-76, February.
    2. Anna Alberini & James R. Kahn (ed.), 2006. "Handbook on Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1893.
    3. Alberto Longo & David Hoyos & Anil Markandya, 2015. "Sequence Effects in the Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs Using the Contingent Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(1), pages 20-35.
    4. Greenberg, Dan & Bakhai, Ameet & Neumann, Peter J. & Cohen, David J., 2004. "Willingness to pay for avoiding coronary restenosis and repeat revascularization: results from a contingent valuation study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 207-216, November.
    5. Stéphane Luchini & Christel Protière & Jean‐Paul Moatti, 2003. "Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 51-64, January.
    6. Stella Nalukwago Settumba & Marian Shanahan & Willings Botha & Muhammad Zulilhaam Ramli & Georgina Mary Chambers, 2019. "Reliability and Validity of the Contingent Valuation Method for Estimating Willingness to Pay: A Case of In Vitro Fertilisation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 103-110, February.
    7. Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326, June.
    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. Xiao-Hua Ying & Teh-Wei Hu & Jane Ren & Wen Chen & Ke Xu & Jin-Hui Huang, 2007. "Demand for private health insurance in Chinese urban areas," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1041-1050.
    2. Hengjin Dong & Bocar Kouyate & John Cairns & Frederick Mugisha & Rainer Sauerborn, 2003. "Willingness‐to‐pay for community‐based insurance in Burkina Faso," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 849-862, October.
    3. Mataria, Awad & Donaldson, Cam & Luchini, Stephane & Moatti, Jean-Paul, 2004. "A stated preference approach to assessing health care-quality improvements in Palestine: from theoretical validity to policy implications," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1285-1311, November.
    4. Tang, Chao-Hsiun & Liu, Jin-Tan & Chang, Ching-Wen & Chang, Wen-Ying, 2007. "Willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment: Results from a contingent valuation study in Taiwan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 251-262, July.
    5. Champonnois, Victor & Chanel, Olivier & Makhloufi, Khaled, 2018. "Reducing the anchoring bias in multiple question CV surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-9.
    6. George Van Houtven & John Powers & Amber Jessup & Jui‐Chen Yang, 2006. "Valuing avoided morbidity using meta‐regression analysis: what can health status measures and QALYs tell us about WTP?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 775-795, August.
    7. O'Shea, Eamon & Gannon, Brenda & Kennelly, Brendan, 2008. "Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in mental health care in Ireland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 359-370, December.
    8. Obinna Onwujekwe, 2001. "Searching for a better willingness to pay elicitation method in rural Nigeria: the binary question with follow‐up method versus the bidding game technique," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 147-158, March.
    9. Kangethe, Anne & Franic, Duska M. & Corso, Phaedra S., 2016. "Comparing the validity of the payment card and structured haggling willingness to pay methods: The case of a diabetes prevention program in rural Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 86-96.
    10. Kim, Ju-Hee & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2021. "Public preferences for introducing a power-to-heat system in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    11. Dr Clevo I. Wilson, 1999. "Pesticide Avoidance: Results From a Sri Lankan Study with Health and Environmental Policy Implications," Discussion Papers Series 264, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    12. 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.
    13. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: two stated preferences approaches," NIMA Working Papers 64, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    16. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    17. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    18. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    19. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.
    20. Maria Veronica Dorgali & Alberto Longo & Caroline Vass & Gemma Shields & Roger Harrison & Riccardo Scarpa & Marco Boeri, 2022. "A General Public Study on Preferences and Welfare Impacts of Antimicrobial Resistance in the United Kingdom," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 65-76, January.

    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:22:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-023-00846-0. 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.