Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 289–300 | Cite as

Cancer patients’ willingness to pay for blood transfusions at home: results from a contingent valuation study in a French cancer network

  • Nathalie Havet
  • Magali Morelle
  • Raphaël Remonnay
  • Marie-Odile Carrere
Original Paper

Abstract

Home blood transfusion may be an interesting alternative to hospital transfusion, especially when given with curative or palliative intent or for terminal care in advanced-stage cancer patients. However, there is limited information about patients’ attitude toward this type of care. The purpose of this study was to measure French cancer patients’ willingness to pay (WTP) for home blood transfusion and to analyze determinants of their choice. A contingent valuation survey was administered to 139 patients receiving transfusions in the framework of a regional home care network or in the hospital outpatient department. Participation was high (90%). Most patients (65%) had received home care, including 43% blood transfusions. Just under half of the patients gave a zero WTP, among which we identified 8 protest bidders. The median WTP for home blood transfusion was 26.5 € per patient. In multivariate analysis, long home–hospital distance, poor quality of life, and previous experience of home care were identified as important factors in determining how much more patients would be willing to pay for transfusion at home. These results demonstrate the benefits of developing domiciliary services to improve patient well-being, notably for the weakest among them. The significant impact of previous home care experience on WTP is probably related to the strong involvement of physicians from the blood center and to their active contribution to a high-level homecare network. Some of our findings could be useful for policy decision-making regarding home care.

Keywords

Contingent valuation Blood transfusion Home care services Oncology 

JEL Classification

I1 (health) I3 (welfare) C5 (econometric modeling) H41 (public good) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the French Ministry of Health (PHRC) for the financial support of this research. They thank also Dr Yves Devaux, Josette Chalencon, and Valerie Kante for their contribution to patient recruitment, Matthias Candusso for data collection, and Marie-Dominique Reynaud for editorial assistance.

References

  1. 1.
    Mathoulin-Pelissier, S., Vicariot, M., Gross, S., Waller, C., Courtois, F., Eghbali, H., et al.: Pilot study of the characteristics of transfused patients and utilized labile blood products. Transfus. Clin. Biol. 4, 533–540 (1997)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barett-Lee, P.J., Bailey, N.P., O’Brien, M.E., Wager, E.: Large-scale UK audit of blood transfusion requirements and anaemia in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Br. J. Cancer 82(1), 93–97 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Idri, S., Catoni, M.P., Si Ali, H., Patte, R., Briere, J., Baudelot, J., Courtois, F.: Transfusion at home? An alternative to the day hospital. Transfus. Clin. Biol. 3, 235–239 (1996)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Madgwick, K.Y., Yardumian, A.: A home blood transfusion programme for beta-thalassaemia patients. Transfus. Med. 9(2), 135–138 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rutman, R., Kakaiya, R., Miller, W.V.: Home transfusion for the cancer patient. Semin. Oncol. Nurs. 6, 163–167 (1990)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sciortino, A.D., Carlton, D.C., Axelrod, A., Eng, M., Zhukovsky, D.S., Vinciguerra, V.: The efficacy of administering blood transfusions at home to terminally ill cancer patients. J. Palliat. Care 9, 14–17 (1993)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Devin, B., Agnew, A.: An evaluation of domiciliary blood transfusion service for palliative care patients in Northern Ireland. Community Pract 81, 32–35 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benson, K.: Home is where the heart is: do blood transfusions belong there too? Transfus. Med. Rev. 20(3), 218–229 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benson, K., Popovsky, M.A., Hines, D., Hume, H., Oberman, H.A., Glassman, A.B., Pisciotto, P.T., Thurer, R.L., Stehling, L., Anderson, K.C.: Nationwide survey of home transfusion practices. Transfusion 38, 90–96 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shepperd, S., Iliffe, S.: Hospital at home versus in-patient hospital care (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library Issue 3. Wiley, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brumley, R., Enguidanos, S., Jamison, P., Seitz, R., et al.: Increased satisfaction with care and lower costs: results of a randomized trial of in-home palliative care. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 55(7), 993–1000 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diener, A., O’Brien, B., Gafni, A.: Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 7(4), 313–326 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klose, T.: The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 47, 97–123 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olsen, J.A., Smith, R.: Theory versus practice: a review of willingness to pay in health and health care. Health Econ. 10, 39–52 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Donaldson, C., Mason, H., Shackley, P.: Contingent valuation in health care. In: Jones, A.M. (ed.) The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, pp. 392–404. Elgar, Cheltenham (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neumann, P.J., Johannesson, M.: The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilization: a pilot study using contingent valuation. Med. Care 32(7), 686–699 (1994)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryan, M.: Should government fund assisted reproductive techniques? A study using willingness to pay. Appl. Econ. 29(7), 841–849 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ryan, M.: Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay. J. Econ. Psychol. 19(2), 179–204 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donaldson, C., Jones, A., Mapp, T., Olson, J.A.: Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care. Appl. Econ. 30, 667–677 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johannesson, M., Jonsson, B., Borgquist, L.: Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy- results of a Swedish pilot study. J. Health Econ 10, 461–474 (1991)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johannesson, M., Johansson, P.O., Kristrom, B., Gerdtham, U.G.: Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -further results. J. Health Econ 12, 95–108 (1993)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramsey, S.D., Sullivan, S.D., Psaty, B.M., Patrick, D.L.: Willingness to pay for antihypertensive care: evidence from a staff-model HMO. Soc. Sci. Med. 44(12), 1911–1917 (1997)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Narbro, K., Sjostrom, L.: Willingness to pay for obesity treatment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16(1), 50–59 (2000)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cawley, J.: Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity. Econ Hum Biol 6(2), 281–292 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ortega, A., Dranitsaris, G., Puodziunas, A.L.: What are cancer patients willing to pay for prophylactic epoetin alfa? A cost-benefit analysis. Cancer 83(12), 2588–2596 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whynes, D.K., Frew, E., Wolstenholme, J.L.: A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. J. Health Econ 22(4), 555–574 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wordsworth, S., Ryan, M., Waugh, N.: Costs and benefits of cervical screening IV: valuation by women of the cervical screening programme. Cytopathology 12(6), 367–376 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T.: Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1989)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Natural resource damage assessments: proposed rules. Fed Reg 59, 1062–1191 (1993)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith, R., Olsen, J.A., Harris, A.: A Review of Methodological Issues in the Conduct of Willingness to Pay Studies in Health Care II: Administration of CV Survey. Centre for Heath Program Evaluation, Monash University, working paper 85 (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Herriges, J.A., Shogren, J.F.: Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J. Environ. Econ. Manage 30(1), 112–131 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Flachaire, E., Hollard, G.: Starting point bias and respondent’s uncertainty. Resour. Energy Econ 29, 183–194 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    O’Brien, B., Gafni, A.: When do the “dollars” make sense? Med. Decis. Making 16, 288–299 (1996)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith, R.D.: Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ. 12, 609–628 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cella, D.F., Tulsky, D.S., Gray, G., et al.: The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J. Clin. Oncol. 11(3), 570–579 (1993)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Donaldson, C.: Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: Does ‘ability to pay’ preclude the use of willingness to pay. Soc. Sci. Med. 49, 551–563 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smith, R., Olsen, J.A., Harris, A.: A Review of Methodological Issues in the Conduct of Willingness to Pay Studies in Health Care III: Issues in the Analysis and Interpretation of WTP Data. Centre for Heath Program Evaluation, Monash University, working paper 86 (1999)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G.W., O’Brien, B., Stoddart, G.L.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health care Programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Strazzera, E., Scarpa, R., Calai, P., Garrod, D., Willis, K.: Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys. Appl. Econ. 35, 133–138 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dalmau-Matarrodona, E.: Alternative approaches to obtain optimal bid values in contingent valuation studies and to model protest zeros. Estimating the determinants of individual’s willingness to pay for home care services in day case surgery. Health Econ. 16, 101–118 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fonta, W., Ichoku, E., Kabubo-Mariara, J.: The effect of protest zeros on estimates of willingness to pay in healthcare contingent valuation analysis. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 8(4), 225–237 (2010)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Amemiya, T.: Tobit models: a survey. J Econom 24, 3–61 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mahmud, M.: Contingent Valuation of Mortality Risk Reduction in Developing Countries: A Mission Impossible?, vol. 1. Keele Economics Research Papers (2006)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    AFSSAPS. Rapport Annuel Hémovigilance 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Quaranta, J.F., Berthier, F., Courbil, R., Courtois, F., Chenay, F., Waller, C., et al.: Who uses blood? Results of a cross-sectional and nation wide survey. Transfus. Clin. Biol. 16(1), 21–29 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Buthion, V.: Organisation de la transfusion sanguine thérapeutique : Etude des modalités alternatives de la transfusion sanguine thérapeutique organisable en ambulatoire. Research report (2009)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Crocker, K.S., Coker, M.H.: Initiation of a home hemotherapy program using a primary nursing model. J Intraven Nurs 13(1), 13–19 (1990)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thompson, H.W., McKelvey, J.: Home blood transfusion therapy: a home health agency’s 5-year experience. Transfusion 35(5), 453 (1995)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fridey, J.L.: Practical aspects of out-of-hospital transfusion. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 107, S64–S71 (1997)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Benson, K.: Blood transfusion in the home sweet home: How to avoid a sour outcome. Cancer Control 4(4), 346–367 (1997)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Koepke, M.D., Nyman, J.A., Koepke, J.A.: Home blood transfusions: the medical, economic, and legal issues surrounding a new treatment procedure. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 13(3), 565–579 (1988)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Benson, K., Balducci, L., Milo, K., Heckel, L., Lyman, G.: Patient’s attitude regarding out-of hospital blood transfusion. Transfusion 36, 140–143 (1996)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Van der Pol, M., Cairns, J.: Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 3, 70–76 (1998)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ademokun, A., Kaznica, S., Deas, S.: Home blood transfusion: a necessary service development. Transfus. Med. 15, 219–222 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ryan, M., Shackley, P.: Assessing the benefits of health care: how far should we go? Qual. Health Care 4, 207–213 (1995)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Donaldson, C., Shackley, P.: Does “process utility” exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc. Sci. Med. 44(5), 699–707 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rischin, D., White, M.A., Matthews, J.P., Toner, G.C., et al.: A randomised crossover trial of chemotherapy in the home: patient preferences and cost analysis. Med. J. Aust. 173(3), 125–127 (2000)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Borras, J.M., Sanchez-Hernandez, A., Navarro, M., Martinez, M., Mendez, E., Ponton, J.L., et al.: Compliance, satisfaction, and quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer receiving home chemotherapy or outpatient treatment: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 322(7290), 826–830 (2001)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Caplan, G.A., Ward, J.A., Brennan, N.J., Coconis, J., Board, N., et al.: Hospital in the home: a randomised controlled trial. Med. J. Aust. 170(4), 156–160 (1999)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    King, M.T., Hall, J., Caleo, S., Gurney, H.P., Harnett, P.R.: Home or hospital ? An evaluation of the costs, preferences, and outcomes of domiciliary chemotherapy. Int. J. Health Serv. 30(3), 557–579 (2000)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Remonnay, R., Devaux, Y., Morelle, M., Kante, V., Havet, N., Carrère, M.O.: Administration des transfusions sanguines à l’hôpital ou à domicile ? Le choix des patients atteints de cancer. Bull Cancer 95(11), 1039–1045 (2008)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zimmermann, C., Riechelmann, R., Krzyzanowska, M., Rodin, G., Tannonck, I.: Effectiveness of specialized care: a systematic review. JAMA 299, 1698–1709 (2008)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Guye, O., Sonko, A.: Etat des lieux épidémiologique du cancer en Rhône-Alpes. ORS Rhône-Alpes (2004)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Guye, O., Dreneau, M., Sonko, A., Fontaine, D. Bernard, M., Picard, T., Gonon, V.: Indicateurs territoriaux pour la santé publique en Rhône-Alpes. ORS Rhône-Alpes (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathalie Havet
    • 1
  • Magali Morelle
    • 2
  • Raphaël Remonnay
    • 2
  • Marie-Odile Carrere
    • 2
  1. 1.GATE Lyon-Saint EtienneUniversity of LyonEcullyFrance
  2. 2.GATE Lyon-Saint EtienneUniversity of Lyon, Léon Bérard Comprehensive Cancer CenterLyon Cedex 08France

Personalised recommendations