Assessing willingness to pay for cancer prevention

  • Michael A. Milligan
  • Alok K. Bohara
  • José A. Pagán


Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the U.S. and its economic cost is very high. The objective of this study is to analyze the socioeconomic and demographic factors that are related to the willingness to pay (WTP) for cancer prevention. Data from an experimental module in the 2002 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) were used to identify WTP differences across different population subgroups. Respondents were asked whether they were willing and able to pay different dollar amounts per month for a new cancer prevention drug. Years of age were negatively related to WTP whereas income and the probability of developing cancer were positively related to WTP. Risk-relevant numeracy skills were positively related to self-assessed cancer risk, which may suggest that adults with poor numeracy skills underestimate their cancer risk. This has consequences not only on the relative perceived value of different cancer treatments across different population subgroups but also on perceived value as captured by WTP.


Willingness to pay Cancer Prevention 

JEL Classification



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Cancer Society: (2008) Cancer facts & figures 2007. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman I. J., Langford I. H., Jones A. P., Kerr G. N. (2001) Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Resource and Energy Economics 23(3): 191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cameron T. A. (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15: 355–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diener A., O’Brien B., Gafni A. (1998) Health care contingent valuation studies: A review and classification of the literature. Health Economics 7: 313–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frew E., Wolstenholme J. L., Whynes D. K. (2001) Willingness-to-pay for colorectal cancer screening. European Journal of Cancer 37: 1746–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hanneman W. M., Kanninen B. (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: Batemen I., Willis K. (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU and developing countries. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 302–441Google Scholar
  7. Hannemann W. M., Loomis J., Kanninen B. (1991) Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 1255–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Health and Retirement Study (2006) 2002 Core Final, Version 2.0 (June 2006). Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Accessed 14 Apr 2009.
  9. Khwaja A., Sloan F., Salm M. (2006) Evidence on preferences and subjective beliefs of risk takers: The case of smokers. International Journal of Industrial Organization 24: 667–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klose T. (1999) The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 47: 97–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krupnick A., Alberini A., Cropper M., Simon N., O’Brien B., Goeree R., Heintzelman M. (2002) Age, health and willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions: A contingent valuation study of Ontario residents. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 24: 161–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leacock, C. P. (2006). Getting started with the health and retirement Study. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Accessed 14 Apr 2009.
  13. Lee C. P., Chertow G. M., Zenios S. A. (2009) An empiric estimate of the value of life: Updating the dialysis cost-effectiveness standard. Value in Health 12(1): 80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. National Cancer Institute (2006). 2006 Fact book. National Cancer Institute. Accessed 14 Apr 2009.
  15. National Cancer Institute (2007). The nation’s investment in cancer research: A plan and budget proposal for fiscal year 2008. National Cancer Institute. Accessed 14 Apr 2009.
  16. National Cancer Institute (2009a). The nation’s investment in cancer research: An annual plan and budget proposal for fiscal year 2010. National Cancer Institute. Accessed 14 Apr 2009.
  17. National Cancer Institute (2009b). Surveillance epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program devcan database. Accessed 16 May 2010.
  18. O’brien B. J., Goeree R., Gani A., Torrance G. W., Pauly M. V., Erder H., Rusthoven J., Weeks J., Cahill M., LaMont B. (1998) Assessing the value of a new pharmaceutical: A feasibility study of contingent valuation in managed care. Medical Care 36(3): 370–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ofstedal, M. B., Fisher, G. G., & Herzog, A. R. (2005). Documentation of cognitive functioning measures in the health and retirement study. HRS Documentation Report DR-006 (March 2005). Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Accessed 14 Apr 2009.
  20. Peters E., Hibbard J., Slovic P., Dieckmann N. (2007) Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs 26: 741–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smith V. K., Taylor D. H. Jr., Sloan F. A. (2001) Longevity expectations and death: Can people predict their own demise. The American Economic Review 91(4): 1126–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sttalhammar N.-O. (1996) An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting point bias. Medical Decision Making 16: 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Viscusi W. K. (1993) The value of risks to life and health. Journal of Economic Literature 31(4): 1912–1946Google Scholar
  24. Viscusi W. K., Zeckhauser R. J. (2003) Sacrificing civil liberties to reduce terrorism risks. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26(3): 99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wagner T. H., Hu T., Dueñas G. V., Kaplan C. P., Nguyen B. H., Pasick R. J. (2001) Does willingness to pay vary by race/ethnicity? An analysis using mammography among low-income women. Health Policy 58: 275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Watson V., Ryan M. (2007) Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation. Journal of Health Economics 26: 463–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Whitehead J. C. (2002) Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Economics 78(2): 285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Milligan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alok K. Bohara
    • 1
  • José A. Pagán
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Department of Global StudiesPusan National UniversityBusan Metropolitan CitySouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public HealthUniversity of North Texas Health Science CenterFort WorthUSA
  4. 4.Leonard Davis Institute of Health EconomicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations