Skip to main content

Willingness to Pay and the Valuation of Programmes for the Prevention and Control of Influenza

PharmacoEconomics volume 16, pages 55–61 (1999)Cite this article

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the role of willingness to pay (WTP) as a method for measuring the impact of healthcare programmes on population well-being. Alternative methods of outcome valuation, such as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), measure values through individuals’ willingness to trade off a particular commodity, future life. Moreover, the method of valuation fails to incorporate several dimensions of benefit relevant to measuring well-being that are particularly important in programmes aimed at the prevention and control of influenza. In contrast, WTP provides a broad method of valuation based on individuals’ willingness to trade off a much wider range of commodities. In addition, WTP incorporates externalities and uncertainty within individual valuations. We show that the main limitations of the WTP approach are not avoided by adoption of the QALY approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

49,54 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Hay J, Daum R. Cost-benefit analysis of Haemophilus influenza type b prevention: conjugate vaccination at eighteen months of age. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1990; 9: 246–52

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jefferson T, Mugford M, Gray A, et al. An exercise on the feasibility of carrying out secondary economic analyses. Health Econ 1996; 5: 155–66

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumpulainen V, Makela M. Influenza vaccination among healthy employees: a cost-benefit analysis. Scand J Infect Dis 1997; 29: 181–5

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Zarnke K, Levine M, O’Brien B. Cost-benefit analyses in the health-care literature: don’t judge a study by its label. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 813–22

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Williams A. The economic role of ‘health indicators’. In: Teeling- Smith G, editor. Measuring the social benefits of medicine. London: Office of Health Economics, 1983: 63–8

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mishan E. Elements of cost-benefit analysis. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1971

    Google Scholar 

  8. Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart G, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sugden R, Williams A. The principles of practical cost-benefit analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rice T. The economics of health reconsidered. Chicago: Health Administration Press, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mooney G. Economics, communitarianism and health care. In: Barer M, Getzen T, Stoddart G, editors. Health, health care and health economics: perspectives on distribution. Chichester: Wiley, 1998: 397–414

    Google Scholar 

  12. Berwick D, Weinstein M. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Med Care 1985; 23: 881–93

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M, et al. Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Econ 1995; 4: 439–52

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Arrow K. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. Am Econ Rev 1963; 53: 940–73

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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: 288–99

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Culyer A. Need and the National Health Service. Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  17. Labelle R, Hurley J. Implications of basing health-care resource allocations on cost-utility analysis in the presence of externalities. J Health Econ 1992; 11: 259–77

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. GafniA. Using willingness to pay as a measure of benefits: what is the relevant question to ask in the context of public decision making? Med Care 1991; 29: 1246–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Torrance G, Feeny D. Utility and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 559–75

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Weisbrod B. Collective consumption services of individual consumption goods. Q J Econ 1964; 78: 471–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gafni A. Willingness to pay in the context of economic evaluation of healthcare programmes: theory and practice. Am J Manage Care 1997; 3 Suppl.: S21–32

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pauly M. Valuing health care benefits inmoney terms. In: Sloan F, editor. Valuing health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995: 99–124

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. O’Brien B, Goeree R, Gafni A, et al. Assessing the value of a new pharmaceutical: a feasibility study of contingent valuation in managed care. Med Care 1998; 36: 370–84

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jones-LeeM. The value of life: an economic analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  25. Viscusi K. Labour market valuations of life and limb: empirical estimates and policy implications. Public Pol 1978; 26: 359–89

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Birch S, Gafni A, Markham B, et al. Health years equivalents as a measure of preferences for dental interventions. Community Dent Health 1998; 15: 223–42

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kenkel D. On valuing morbidity, cost-effectiveness analysis and being rude. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 749–58

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kidholm K. Estimation of willingness to pay for prevention of injuries in traffic accidents [PhD thesis]. Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  29. Donaldson C, Birch S, Gafni A. The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes. CHEPA Working Paper. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  30. Fuchs V. The counter revolution in health care financing. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 1154–6

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 3Z5, Canada

    Stephen Birch, Amiram Gafni & Bernie O’Brien

  2. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Stephen Birch, Amiram Gafni & Bernie O’Brien

  3. Centre for the Evaluation of Medicines, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Bernie O’Brien

Authors
  1. Stephen Birch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amiram Gafni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bernie O’Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Birch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Birch, S., Gafni, A. & O’Brien, B. Willingness to Pay and the Valuation of Programmes for the Prevention and Control of Influenza. Pharmacoeconomics 16, 55–61 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199916001-00008

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199916001-00008

Keywords

  • Influenza
  • Adis International Limited
  • Standard Gamble
  • Health Econ
  • Healthcare Programme