IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Willingness-to-pay for genetic testing for inherited retinal disease

  • Sandy Tubeuf

    ()

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Thomas A. Willis

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Barbara Potrata

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Hilary Grant

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Matthew J. Allsop

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Mushtaq Ahmed

    (Yorkshire Regional Genetics Service, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds)

  • Jenny Hewison

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Martin McKibbin

    (Ophthalmology Department, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds)

Background: Diagnostic tests are often evaluated according to how the results will change clinical management. Patients may value information even if the management does not change. Objective: To investigate the willingness of adults with inherited retinal disease to undergo and pay for diagnostic genetic testing in three hypothetical scenarios and to explore the factors that influence decision making. Methods: Fifty patients were purposively sampled from an initial cohort of 200 participants and presented with three scenarios whereby genetic testing provided increasing information: (i) confirming the diagnosis and inheritance pattern alone, (ii) providing additional information on future visual function, and (iii) identifying in addition a new treatment which could stabilise their condition. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) was elicited using an iterative bidding game. Regression analysis was used to investigate the probability of agreeing to and paying for testing. Qualitative data were also reviewed to provide a comprehensive understanding of WTP and decision making. Results: The majority of participants agreed to undergo genetic testing in each of the three scenarios. Scenario 2 was the least acceptable with 78% of participants agreeing to genetic testing. The probability of agreeing genetic testing decreased with age. Between 72%-96% of participants reported a WTP for genetic testing. Average WTP was £539, £1,516 and £6,895 for scenarios 1, 2 and 3 respectively. WTP appeared to rise with age and income. Qualitative data provided additional detail about the rationale behind participants’ decisions. Conclusions: The study suggests that patients with inherited retinal disease were willing to undergo and to pay for diagnostic genetic testing, suggesting that they valued the information it may provide. However, several patients preferred not to receive prognostic information and were less willing to pay for genetic testing that yielded such detail.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/download/588/auhe_wp13_09
File Function: First version, 2013
Download Restriction: The final version of the article is published in European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication 11 June 2014;doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.111

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Paper provided by Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds in its series Working Papers with number 1309.

as
in new window

Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1309
Contact details of provider: Phone: Charles Thackrah Building, 101 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS9 2LJ
Fax: +44 (0) 113 343 3470
Web page: http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/auhe
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Richard Cookson, 2003. "Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 891-894.
  2. 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.
  3. Peter J. Neumann & Joshua T. Cohen & James K. Hammitt & Thomas W. Concannon & Hannah R. Auerbach & ChiHui Fang & David M. Kent, 2012. "Willingness‐to‐pay for predictive tests with no immediate treatment implications: a survey of US residents," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 238-251, 03.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Judy Wright)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.