IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cty/dpaper/04-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuing the benefit of varicella vaccination: comparison of willingness to pay and quality-adjusted life-years

Author

Listed:
  • Brisson, M.
  • Edmunds, J.

Abstract

Vaccination is different from most health interventions because it is preventative, it protects against infectious disease (leading to knock-on effects), the diseases it prevents are usually acute and self-limiting, and most vaccines are given to children from whom it is very difficult to elicit preferences. Because of its unique characteristics, vaccination may possess its own specific attributes. In this paper, we estimate the average Willingness to Pay (WTP) for varicella vaccination and the Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALY) lost due to chickenpox using Contingent Valuation (CV), Standard Gamble and Health Utility Index Mark II (HUI2). Furthermore, we identify what attributes of vaccination are important to vaccinees and what elicitation technique can capture these components. To do this, we administered computerised interviews to a sample of parents attending primary Health Centres. Using CV we demonstrate that individuals are willing to pay more for vaccination than treatment. Furthermore, we show that prevention of work loss is an important intervention attribute for parents. On the other hand, consistent with economic theory, the elicitation techniques used to estimate QALYs (Standard Gamble and HUI2) did not capture non-health benefits. Finally, results elicited using the CV were correlated with QALYs measured through the HUI2 questionnaire.

Suggested Citation

  • Brisson, M. & Edmunds, J., 2004. "Valuing the benefit of varicella vaccination: comparison of willingness to pay and quality-adjusted life-years," Working Papers 04/02, Department of Economics, City University London.
    • Handle: RePEc:cty:dpaper:04/02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/1427/1/0402_brisson-edmunds.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mooney, Gavin, 1994. "Editorial : What else do we want from our health services?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 151-154, July.
    2. Labelle, Roberta J. & Hurley, Jeremiah E., 1992. "Implications of basing health-care resource allocations on cost-utility analysis in the presence of externalities," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 259-277, October.
    3. Bernie O'Brien & Jose Luis Viramontes, 1994. "Willingness to Pay," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(3), pages 289-297, August.
    4. 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. van der Star, Sanne M. & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Individual responsibility and health-risk behaviour: A contingent valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 300-311, August.
    2. Raphaël Remonnay & Nathalie Havet & Magali Morelle & Marie-Odile Carrère, 2008. "Analyzing the determinants of willingness-to-pay values for testing the validity of the contingent valuation method. Application to home care compared to hospital care," Working Papers 0820, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    3. 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.
    4. Richard D. Smith, 2001. "The relative sensitivity of willingness‐to‐pay and time‐trade‐off to changes in health status: an empirical investigation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(6), pages 487-497, September.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Hareth Al-Janabi & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer & Joanna Coast, 2016. "A Framework for Including Family Health Spillovers in Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 176-186, February.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Kevin Haninger & James K. Hammitt, 2011. "Diminishing Willingness to Pay per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year: Valuing Acute Foodborne Illness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1363-1380, September.
    15. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    16. 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.
    17. Alan Shiell & Janelle Seymour & Penelope Hawe & Sue Cameron, 2000. "Are preferences over health states complete?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 47-55, January.
    18. Norah L. Crossnohere & Sarah Janse & Ellen Janssen & John F. P. Bridges, 2021. "Comparing the Preferences of Patients and the General Public for Treatment Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 89-100, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Mohsen Sadatsafavi; & Carlo Marra; & Lawrence McCandless & Stirling Bryan, 2012. "The challenge of incorporating external evidence in trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses: the use of resampling methods," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 12/24, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

    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:cty:dpaper:04/02. 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: Research Publications Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decituk.html .

    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.