Skip to main content
Log in

The measurement of willingness to pay for mass cancer screening with whole-body PET (positron emission tomography)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Recently, we have seen an increase in the number of studies that measured the willingness to pay (WTP) for medical services using the contingent valuation method (CVM) and evaluated the benefits of these services. This study aimed to measure the general public’s WTP for cancer screening with positron emission tomography (PET) and to determine consumer characteristics that may affect their WTP.

Methods

A questionnaire survey of males and females living in Japan aged between 40 and 59 years was conducted via the Internet. A total of 274 individuals accepted the offer to participate and were enrolled in the study. The study participants were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 138) and Group B (n = 136). Group A was provided only with information about the PET procedure and the high cancer detection rate; Group B was provided with additional information regarding the possibility of ‘false negative’ and ‘false positive’ results and the fact that the efficacy of PET screening for reducing mortality has not yet been demonstrated. Participants were then asked to answer their WTP for cancer screening with PET by payment cards approach.

Results

The overall average amount consumers were willing to pay for PET cancer screening was $103.7 (n = 274). The average value in Group A was $107.3, the average value in Group B was $100.0 and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. The results of categorical regression analysis showed that household annual income was the only significant factor affecting WTP.

Conclusions

Our study showed that household annual income affected the WTP for cancer screening with PET and therefore the demand for PET screening would be limited to the high-income group. Negative information about PET did not reduce the WTP. This finding suggests that test subjects mainly evaluated the high detection rate of PET screening and the ‘reassurance’ value of receiving negative screening results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yasuda S, Ide M, Fujii H, Nakahara T, Mochizuki Y, Takahashi W, et al. Application of positron emission tomography imaging to cancer screening.Br J Cancer 2000; 83: 1607–1611.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ide M, Suzuki Y. Is whole-body FDG-PET valuable for health screening? For.Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 2005; 32:339- 341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen YK, Ding HJ, Su CT, Shen YY, Chen LK, Liao AC, et al. Application of PET and PET/CT imaging for cancer screening.Anticancer Res 2004; 24: 4103–4108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weckesser M, Schober O. Is whole-body FDG-PET valuable for health screening? Against.Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 2005; 32: 342–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith RD. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment.Health Econ 2003; 12: 609–628.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. Use of contingent valuation to place a monetary value on pharmacy services: an overview and review of the literature.Clin Ther 1999; 21: 1402–1417.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review of the literature.Health Econ 1998; 7: 313–326.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care.Health Econ 2001; 10: 39–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Brien B, Gafni A. When do the “dollars” make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care.Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 288- 299.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Klose T. The contingent evaluation method in health care.Health Policy 1999; 47: 97–123.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Papatheofanis FJ. The willingness to pay for positron emission tomography (PET): evaluation of suspected lung cancer using contingent valuation.Q J Nucl Med 2000; 44: 191–196.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Drummond MF, Stoddard GL. Economic evaluation of health-producing technologies across different sectors: Can valid methods be developed?Health Policy 1995; 33: 219- 231.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Drumond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW.Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. New York; Oxford University Press, 1997: 226.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Berwick DM, Weinstein MC. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy.Med Care 1985; 23: 881–893.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M, Miedzybrodzka Z. Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis.Health Econ 1995; 4: 439–452.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hideo Yasunaga.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yasunaga, H., Ide, H., Imamura, T. et al. The measurement of willingness to pay for mass cancer screening with whole-body PET (positron emission tomography). Ann Nucl Med 20, 457–462 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02987254

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02987254

Key words

Navigation