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
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
|Date of creation:||Jul 2006|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: + 34 954 34 8913
Fax: + 34 954 34 9339
Web page: http://www.upo.es/econ/Email:
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- 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.
- Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
- Cooper, Joseph C. & Hanemann, W.M. & Signorello, Giovanni, 2002. "One and One-Half Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," MPRA Paper 17190, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Nov 2002.
- Cooper, Joseph C. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Signorello, Giovanni, 2001. "One-and-One-Half Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt09c663b2, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
- 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.
- 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.
- Carson, Richard T & Flores, Nicholas A, 2000. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt75k752s7, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
- 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.
- 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.
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.