IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i2d10.1007_s40273-021-01103-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Value of Genomic Testing: A Contingent Valuation Across Six Child- and Adult-Onset Genetic Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Meng

    (University of Melbourne
    Australian Genomics Health Alliance
    Murdoch Children’s Research Institute)

  • Philip M. Clarke

    (University of Melbourne
    University of Oxford)

  • Ilias Goranitis

    (University of Melbourne
    Australian Genomics Health Alliance
    Murdoch Children’s Research Institute)

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to elicit the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for genomic testing, using contingent valuation, among people with lived experience of genetic conditions in Australia. Methods Parents of children with suspected mitochondrial disorders, epileptic encephalopathy, leukodystrophy, or malformations of cortical development completed a dynamic triple-bounded dichotomous choice (DC) contingent valuation. Adult patients or parents of children with suspected genetic kidney disease or complex neurological and neurodegenerative conditions completed a payment card (PC) contingent valuation. DC data were analyzed using a multilevel interval regression and a multilevel probit model. PC data were analyzed using a Heckman selection model. Results In total, 360 individuals participated in the contingent valuation (CV), with 141 (39%) and 219 (61%) completing the DC and PC questions, respectively. The mean WTP for genomic testing was estimated at AU$2830 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2236–3424) based on the DC data and AU$1914 (95% CI 1532–2296) based on the PC data. The mean WTP across the six cohorts ranged from AU$1879 (genetic kidney disease) to AU$4554 (leukodystrophy). Conclusions Genomic testing is highly valued by people experiencing rare genetic conditions. Our findings can inform cost–benefit analyses and the prioritization of genomics into mainstream clinical care. While our WTP estimates for adult-onset genetic conditions aligned with estimates derived from discrete choice experiments (DCEs), for childhood-onset conditions our estimates were significantly lower. Research is urgently required to directly compare, and critically evaluate, the performance of CV and DCE methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Meng & Philip M. Clarke & Ilias Goranitis, 2022. "The Value of Genomic Testing: A Contingent Valuation Across Six Child- and Adult-Onset Genetic Conditions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 215-223, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01103-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01103-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-021-01103-9
    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/s40273-021-01103-9?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. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    2. Richard C. Ready & Ståle Navrud & RW. Richard Dubourg, 2001. "How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(3), pages 315-326.
    3. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum & William H. Desvousges & Richard W. Dunford & Sara P. Hudson, 1996. "Valuing Public Goods: Discrete versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 381-396.
    4. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    5. Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley & Mona Abdalla, 1997. "Using Willingness To Pay To Value Close Substitutes: Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 145-159, March.
    6. Cam Donaldson & Andrew Jones & Tracy Mapp & Jan Abel Olson, 1998. "Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 667-677.
    7. Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley & Mona Abdalla & Zosia Miedzybrodzka, 1995. "Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(6), pages 439-452, November.
    8. Ian Langford & Ian Bateman & Hugh Langford, 1996. "A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(3), pages 197-211, April.
    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. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    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. Wan-Jiun Chen & Jihn-Fa Jan & Chih-Hsin Chung & Shyue-Cherng Liaw, 2022. "Resident Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services in Hillside Forests," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Camillus Abawiera Wongnaa & Faizal Adams & Richard Kwasi Bannor & Dadson Awunyo-Vitor & Isaac Mahama & Bismark Afoakwa Osei & Yaw Owusu-Ansah & Angelina Ackon, 2019. "Job creation and improved consumer health through commercialisation of tiger nut yoghurt: a willingness to pay analysis," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, December.
    6. Ryan, Mandy & San Miguel, Fernando, 2000. "Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 305-317, June.
    7. Seung-Hoon Yoo & Hee-Jong Yang, 2001. "Application of Sample Selection Model to Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(2), pages 147-163, October.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    9. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Lim, Seul-Ye & Kim, Hyo-Jin & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "Public's willingness to pay a premium for bioethanol in Korea: A contingent valuation study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-27.
    11. Deutschmann, Joshua W. & Postepska, Agnieszka & Sarr, Leopold, 2021. "Measuring willingness to pay for reliable electricity: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    12. María Xosé Vázquez & Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2006. "Economic evaluation of health effects with preference imprecision," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 403-417, April.
    13. Fernando Antoñanzas & R. Rodríguez-Ibeas & M. Hutter & R. Lorente & C. Juárez & M. Pinillos, 2012. "Genetic testing in the European Union: does economic evaluation matter?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 651-661, October.
    14. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    15. Ricardo Faria & Raul Matsuhita & Jorge Nogueira & Benjamin Tabak, 2007. "Realism Versus Statistical Efficiency: A Note on Contingent Valuation with Follow-up Queries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 35(4), pages 451-462, December.
    16. Haddak, Mohamed Mouloud & Lefèvre, Marie & Havet, Nathalie, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for road safety improvement," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-10.
    17. Kim, Hyo-Jin & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "Is the Korean public willing to pay for a decentralized generation source? The case of natural gas-based combined heat and power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 125-131.
    18. John C. Whitehead, 2000. "“Anchoring and Shift in Multiple Bound Contingent Valuation,”," Working Papers 0004, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    19. Qiu, Richard T.R. & Park, Jinah & Li, ShiNa & Song, Haiyan, 2020. "Social costs of tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    20. Bobinac, Ana & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "GET MORE, PAY MORE? An elaborate test of construct validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates obtained through contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 158-168.

    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:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-021-01103-9. 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.