IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/conrep/002108.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Preferences for Health Gains and Cures: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Hampson, G.
  • Mott, D.
  • Devlin, N.
  • Shah, K.

Abstract

Whether or not society values curative therapies more highly (or less highly) than the sum of the iterative improvements that might come from conventional therapy has been highlighted as an important area for research. The aim of this research was thus to explore society's preferences across curative and non-curative therapies and large and small health gains, via a discrete choice experiment. We find that respondents value health gains highly but do not appear to place additional value on the treatment being a "cure" per se. However, we use a very specific definition of a cure (treatments that restore patients to normal life expectancy and full quality of life), and therefore suggest that our results are taken with caution. Treatments that offer sizeable health gains, but do not necessarily restore health to that of a 'healthy' individual, would no doubt be of significant social value given the preferences of our respondents for larger health gains. This reflects the benefits offered by some advanced therapy medicinal products, which have the potential to result in substantial health benefits but may not entirely restore patients to the health of a disease-free individual. This study was funded by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Hampson, G. & Mott, D. & Devlin, N. & Shah, K., 2019. "Public Preferences for Health Gains and Cures: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Consulting Reports 002108, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:conrep:002108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/system/files/private/publications/OHE%20Consulting%20Report%20-%20Health%20Gains%20and%20Cures%20JAN%202019.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    2. Olsen, Jan Abel, 2000. "A note on eliciting distributive preferences for health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 541-550, July.
    3. Lancsar, Emily & Wildman, John & Donaldson, Cam & Ryan, Mandy & Baker, Rachel, 2011. "Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 466-478, March.
    4. repec:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0506-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0575-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    7. repec:eee:socmed:v:204:y:2018:i:c:p:39-50 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336.
    9. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976.
    10. Gu, Yuanyuan & Lancsar, Emily & Ghijben, Peter & Butler, James RG & Donaldson, Cam, 2015. "Attributes and weights in health care priority setting: A systematic review of what counts and to what extent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 41-52.
    11. Marsden, G. & Towse, A., 2017. "Exploring the Assessment and Appraisal of Regenerative Medicines and Cell Therapy Products: Is the NICE Approach Fit for Purpose?," Consulting Reports 001802, Office of Health Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Measuring and valuing outcomes;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ohe:conrep:002108. 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: (Publications Manager). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.