IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v26y2025i2d10.1007_s10198-024-01693-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monetary value of health—a practical decision-making framework combining equity considerations and WTP

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeta Ribarić

    (Center for Health Economics and Pharmacoeconomics (CHEP))

  • Ismar Velić

    (Center for Health Economics and Pharmacoeconomics (CHEP))

  • Ana Bobinac

    (Center for Health Economics and Pharmacoeconomics (CHEP))

Abstract

Objective We estimate the first monetary value of a health gain in Croatia to inform the debate about the appropriate “demand-side” cost-effectiveness thresholds in Croatia but also Central and Eastern Europe, where such debates are still uncommon. We test the empirical support for two equity considerations: age and severity operationalized as proportional shortfall (PS), and propose a pragmatic framework for combining equity considerations with the monetary value of health into a single threshold. Methods We used the contingent valuation method to elicit the willingness to pay per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) in Croatia, using a representative sample of the population (N = 1,500, online survey). 29 EQ-5D health states were valued using payment scales and open-ended question as payment vehicles. To test the hypotheses, we used both parametric tests and non-parametric tests. Multilinear regression was employed to test the theoretical validity of the results. Results The monetary value of a health gain in Croatia is equivalent to 1.15 of GDP per capita (equaling €17,000). Age of patients seems to be an important equity-related characteristic. The WTP per QALY in the age-neutral risk group (€11,900) was nearly equivalent to the WTP per QALY in the adult (neutral) risk group (€11,700) but lower by 16% compared to the WTP per QALY estimated in children (€14,200; p = 0.00). WTP estimates are theoretically valid and to, a small degree, scale sensitive. There is a positive association between the level of proportional shortfall and willingness to pay. To increase the usefulness of our results for the policy-makers, we combine the elicited preferences into a single decision-making framework and construct several cost-effectiveness thresholds based on willingness to pay and equity-related preferences. Based on empirical results, cost-effectiveness thresholds could range up to €20,308 for the most severe health conditions in children or could be lowered to €16,777 for less severe health conditions. Discussion In Central and Eastern Europe, in spite of a growing understanding of the importance of further developing value-based assessment frameworks there has been very little empirical research to guide, inform and promote this development. Countries in this region use mainly GDP-based thresholds without empirical evidence to support such important decisions. This may lead to thresholds that are too high, with detrimental consequence for the pricing and reimbursement systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeta Ribarić & Ismar Velić & Ana Bobinac, 2025. "Monetary value of health—a practical decision-making framework combining equity considerations and WTP," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(2), pages 183-198, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01693-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01693-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-024-01693-z
    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/s10198-024-01693-z?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. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto, 2000. "A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1485-1496, November.
    3. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2003. "Willingness to pay for a QALY," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1049-1060, December.
    4. Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Laura Vallejo-Torres & Borja García-Lorenzo & Oliver Rivero-Arias & José Luis Pinto-Prades, 2020. "The societal monetary value of a QALY associated with EQ-5D-3L health gains," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 363-379, April.
    6. Linda Ryen & Mikael Svensson, 2015. "The Willingness to Pay for a Quality Adjusted Life Year: A Review of the Empirical Literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1289-1301, October.
    7. Ana Bobinac & Job Exel & Frans Rutten & Werner Brouwer, 2014. "The Value of a QALY: Individual Willingness to Pay for Health Gains Under Risk," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 75-86, January.
    8. Paul Dolan & Jan Abel Olsen & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2003. "An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 545-551, July.
    9. Thomas G. Poder & Jie He, 2016. "Willingness to pay and the sensitivity of willingness to pay for interdisciplinary musculoskeletal clinics: a contingent valuation study in Quebec, Canada," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 337-361, December.
    10. Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Gang Chen, 2018. "Does the use of the proportional shortfall help align the prioritisation of health services with public preferences?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 797-806, July.
    11. Aki Tsuchiya & Verity Watson, 2017. "Re‐Thinking ‘The Different Perspectives That can be Used When Eliciting Preferences in Health’," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 103-107, December.
    12. Ahlert, Marlies & Breyer, Friedrich & Schwettmann, Lars, 2016. "How you ask is what you get: Framing effects in willingness-to-pay for a QALY," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 40-48.
    13. Luka Vončina & Tea Strbad & Jurij Fürst & Maria Dimitrova & Maria Kamusheva & Megi Vila & Ileana Mardare & Kristina Hristova & Andras Harsanyi & Dragana Atanasijević & Igor Banović & Ana Bobinac, 2021. "Pricing and Reimbursement of Patent-Protected Medicines: Challenges and Lessons from South-Eastern Europe," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 915-927, November.
    14. Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & William D. Schulze & Jeremy Clark, 2000. "Comparison of Hypothetical Phone and Mail Contingent Valuation Responses for Green-Pricing Electricity Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 54-67.
    15. Lotte Soeteman & Job Exel & Ana Bobinac, 2017. "The impact of the design of payment scales on the willingness to pay for health gains," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 743-760, July.
    16. Ottersen, Trygve & Førde, Reidun & Kakad, Meetali & Kjellevold, Alice & Melberg, Hans Olav & Moen, Atle & Ringard, Ånen & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2016. "A new proposal for priority setting in Norway: Open and fair," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 246-251.
    17. Werner Brouwer & Pieter Baal & Job Exel & Matthijs Versteegh, 2019. "When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 175-180, March.
    18. Jeff Richardson & John McKie & Stuart Peacock & Angelo Iezzi, 2011. "Severity as an independent determinant of the social value of a health service," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(2), pages 163-174, April.
    19. Sándor Kovács & Bertalan Németh & Dalma Erdősi & Valentin Brodszky & Imre Boncz & Zoltán Kaló & Antal Zemplényi, 2022. "Should Hungary Pay More for a QALY Gain than Higher-Income Western European Countries?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 291-303, May.
    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. Christian R. C. Kouakou & Thomas G. Poder, 2022. "Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: a systematic review with meta-regression," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(2), pages 277-299, March.
    2. Arthur E. Attema & Marieke Krol & Job Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2018. "New findings from the time trade-off for income approach to elicit willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 277-291, March.
    3. Ana Bobinac & N. Job A. van Exel & Frans F. H. Rutten & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2013. "Valuing Qaly Gains By Applying A Societal Perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(10), pages 1272-1281, October.
    4. Sebastian Himmler & Jannis Stöckel & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2020. "The Value of Health - Empirical Issues when Estimating the Monetary Value of a QALY Based on Well-Being," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1101, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    5. Elizabeta Ribarić & Ismar Velić & Ana Bobinac, 2024. "VOLY: The Monetary Value of a Life-Year at the End of Patients’ Lives," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 97-106, January.
    6. Werner Brouwer & Pieter Baal & Job Exel & Matthijs Versteegh, 2019. "When is it too expensive? Cost-effectiveness thresholds and health care decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 175-180, March.
    7. S. Olofsson & U.-G. Gerdtham & L. Hultkrantz & U. Persson, 2019. "Value of a QALY and VSI estimated with the chained approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(7), pages 1063-1077, September.
    8. Sebastian Himmler & Jannis Stöckel & Job van Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2021. "The value of health—Empirical issues when estimating the monetary value of a quality‐adjusted life year based on well‐being data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(8), pages 1849-1870, August.
    9. Meg Perry-Duxbury & Sebastian Himmler & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2023. "Willingness to pay for health gains from an international integrated early warning system for infectious disease outbreaks," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 967-986, August.
    10. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    11. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    12. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    13. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    14. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Shaw, W. Douglass & Silva, Andres, 2006. "The Effect of Risk Presentation on Product Valuation: An Experimental Analysis," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21429, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Emmanuel Kemel, 2014. "Eliciting Prospect Theory When Consequences Are Measured in Time Units: “Time Is Not Money”," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1844-1859, July.
    16. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    17. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    18. Ryen, Linda & Svensson, Mikael, 2014. "The Willingness to Pay for a QALY: a Review of the Empirical Literature," Karlstad University Working Papers in Economics 12, Karlstad University, Department of Economics.
    19. Hamraz Mokri & Pieter Baal & Maureen Rutten-van Mölken, 2025. "The impact of different perspectives on the cost-effectiveness of remote patient monitoring for patients with heart failure in different European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(1), pages 71-85, February.
    20. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 159, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01693-z. 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.