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

Willingness to pay for a reduction in the mortality risk after a myocardial infarction: an aplication of the contingent valuation method to the case of eplerenone

  • Jose Luis Pinto-Prades

    ()

    (Department of Economics, Universidad Pablo de Olavide)

  • Veronica Farreras

    (Department of Applied Economics. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona)

  • Jaime Fernández de Bobadilla

    (Pfizer)

Background: In order to allocate health care resources more efficiently it is necessary to relate health improvements provided by new medicines with their cost. It is necessary to ascertain when the additional cost of introducing a new health technology is justified by the additional health gain produced. Eplerenone is a new medicine that reduces the risk of death after myocardial infarction (MI) but produces additional cost to the health system. The contingent valuation approach can be used to measure the monetary value of this risk reduction. Objective: to estimate society’s willingness to pay (WTP) for a new medicine that reduces by 2% the risk of death after MI. Methods: We used a contingent valuation approach to evaluate WTP amongst members of the general population. We used the ex-ante and the ex-post approach. In the ex-ante approach subjects are asked if they would accept an increase in their taxes in order to have access to Eplerenone should they need it in the future. In the ex-post approach subjects are asked if they would pay a certain amount of money as co-payment per month during five years if they suffered a MI. We used the Dichotomous Choice method, using five bids in each approach. The WTP was estimated using both single-bound and double-bound dichotomous choice (SBDC, DBDC). Extensive piloting (n=187) preceded the final survey (n=350). Results: The WTP in the ex-ante case was €58 per year under both SBDC and DBDC. In the ex-post case monthly WTP was €144 for the SBDC and €85 for the DBDC. Subjects with higher income and subjects with a higher perception of risk showed a higher WTP (p

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://www.upo.es/serv/bib/wps/econ0617.pdf
File Function: First version, 2006
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 06.17.

as
in new window

Length: 18 pages
Date of creation: Jul 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pab:wpaper:06.17
Contact details of provider: Postal: Carretera de Utrera km.1, 41013 Sevilla
Phone: + 34 954 34 8913
Fax: + 34 954 34 9339
Web page: http://www.upo.es/econ/
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. Cooper, Joseph C. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Signorello, Giovanni, 2001. "One-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation," CUDARE Working Paper Series 921, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Policy.
  2. Barbara J. Kanninen & M. Sami Khawaja, 1999. "Measuring Goodness of Fit for the Double-Bounded Logit Model: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(1), pages 238-240.
  3. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-19, November.
  4. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, 03.
  5. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
  6. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
  7. Olsen, Jan Abel & Kidholm, Kristian & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2004. "Willingness to pay for public health care: a comparison of two approaches," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 217-228, November.
  8. Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  9. Peter A. Ubel & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel, 2000. "Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 127-136.
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:pab:wpaper:06.17. 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: (Publicación Digital - UPO)

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.