Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A ‘League Table’ of Contingent Valuation Results for Pharmaceutical Interventions

A Hard Pill to Swallow?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pharmaceutical expenditure represents a large percentage of total healthcare expenditure, and has thus received much attention within the economic evaluation literature. However, although the number of contingent valuation (CV) studies measuring willingness to pay (WTP) in healthcare has increased, little is known about the relative magnitude of values elicited across different interventions, diseases or countries, or the methodological comparability of these values. We address this gap by seeking to establish if it is feasible to use elicited WTP values in resource allocation, illustrated by attempting to compile a ‘league table’ of WTP values for pharmaceutical interventions.

A review database was compiled for CV studies in healthcare published from January 1985 to December 2005. Of 210 studies identified, 40 considered pharmaceutical interventions. Values are presented as mean or median WTP values, adjusted where necessary to £ and $US for 2004/5.

Lack of reporting in some instances of either the mean or median, together with heterogenous methods and infrequent reporting of costs, made ‘league table’ construction difficult. This raises questions about the use of existing studies for resource allocation decisions, despite the fact that most studies were seemingly undertaken for policy objectives.

However, four interventions had more than one study, making it possible to compare the values elicited. The values elicited across studies were fairly consistent for two interventions (anti-hypertensive therapy and tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-α blockade for rheumatoid arthritis), whereas WTP values for insulin and post-operative emesis therapy were very divergent. No single methodological difference seemed to explain this pattern; however, the more methodological differences between studies the greater the likelihood of divergent values.

A checklist, or minimum reporting set of information, is the first step towards improving the consistency of methods, and therefore values, published. In the longer term, a move towards the use of a reference case akin to that used for cost-utility studies would seem important if such studies are to be used for comparative purposes and thereby be relevant to resource allocation decision making.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. OECD. Drug spending in OECD countries up by nearly a third since 1998, according to new OECD data [online]. Available from URL: http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,2340,en_2649_37407 34967193_1_1_1_37407,00.html [Assessed 2006 Apr 28]

  2. Tarn TYH, Smith MD. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world [online]. Available from URL: http://www,ispor.org/PEguidelines/index.asp [Acessed 2006 Dec 12]. ISPOR Connections 2004 Aug 15; 10 (4): 5–15

    Google Scholar 

  3. Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  4. Smith RD, Richardson J. Can we estimate the ‘social’ value of a QALY? Four core issues to resolve. Health Policy 2005; 74 (1): 77–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  6. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ 2001; 10 (1): 39–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sach TH, Smith RS, Whynes DK. How deep is the public pocket for health? A ‘league table’ of willingness-to-pay values. The 66th Health Econ Study group Meeting; 2005 Jan 5–7; Oxford University

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dranitsaris G, Leung P, Ciotti R, et al. A multinational study to measure the value that patients with cancer place on improved emesis control following cisplatin chemotherapy. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (9): 955–967

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Davey P, Grainger D, MacMillan J, et al. Economic evaluation of insulin lispro versus neutral (regular) insulin therapy using a willingness-to-pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (3): 347–358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sadri H, MacKeigan LD, Leiter LA, et al. Willingness to pay for inhaled insulin: a contingent valuation approach. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (12): 1215–1227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dranitsaris G, Longo CJ, Grossman LD. The economic value of a new insulin preparation, humalog mix 25: measured by a willingness-to-pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18: 275–287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. O’Brien BJ, Novosel S, Torrance G, et al. Assessing the economic value of a new antidepressant:a willingness-to-pay approach. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (1): 34–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Matthews D, Rocchi A, Gafni A. Putting your money where your mouth is: willingness to pay for dental gel. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (4): 245–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Diez L. Assessing the willingness of parents to pay for reducing post operative emesis in children. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 589–595

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2 (1): 55–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ratcliffe J. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values: proceed with caution? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16 (1): 270–275

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Skjoldborg US, Gyrd-Hansen D. Conjoint analysis: the cost variable: an Achilles’ heel? Health Econ 2003; 12: 479–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Williams A. Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. BMJ 1985; 291 (6491): 326–329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chapman RH, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, et al. A comprehensive league table of cost-utility ratios and a subtable of ‘panel-worthy’ studies. Med Decis Making 2000; 20 (4): 451–467

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wolstenholme J, Gray A. Economic evaluations with a UK setting and NICE guidance published between 1997 and 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.herc.ox.ac.uk/research/QALY_league_table.pdf [Assessed 2006 Apr 19]

  21. Mauskopf J, Rutten F, Schonfeld W. Cost-effectiveness league tables: valuable guidance for decision makers? Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (14): 991–1000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nutley S, Smith PC. League tables for performance improvement in health care. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998; 3 (1): 50–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Drummond M, Mason J, Torrance G. Cost-effectiveness league tables: think of the fans. Health Policy 1995; 31 (3): 231–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Drummond M, Torrance G, Mason J. Cost-effectiveness league tables: more harm than good? Soc Sci Med 1993; 37 (1): 33–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mooney G. QALY league tables: the road to better priority setting? In: Mooney G., editor. Key issues in health economics. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994: 49–64

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gerard K, Mooney G. QALY league tables: handle with care. Health Econ 1993; 2 (1): 59–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mason J, Drummond M, Torrance G. Some guidelines on the use of cost effectiveness league tables. BMJ 1993; 306 (6877): 570–572

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Petrou S, Malek M, Davey PG. The reliability of cost-utility estimates in cost-per-QALY league tables. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 3 (5): 345–353

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ 1998; 7 (4): 313–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bala MV, Mauskopf JA, Wood LL. Willingness to pay as a measure of health benefits. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15 (1): 9–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999; 47 (2): 97–123

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Smith RD. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ 2003; 12 (8): 609–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Smith RD. The discrete choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines? Med Decis Making 2000; 20 (2): 194–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Borgquist L. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy: results of a Swedish pilot study. J Health Econ 1991; 10 (4): 461–474

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Johannesson M, Johansson PO, Kristrom B, et al. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy: further results. J Health Econ 1993; 12 (1): 95–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Johannesson M, Johansson PO, Kristrom B, et al. Willingness to pay for lipid lowering: a health production function approach. Appl Econ 1993; 25 (8): 1023–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zethraeus N. Willingness to pay for hormone replacement therapy. Health Econ 1998; 7: 31–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Braun M, Wassmer G, Klotz T, et al. Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction: results of the ‘Cologne Male Survey’. Int J Impot Res 2000; 12: 305–311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Gan T, Sloan F, Dear GD, et al. How much are patients willing to pay to avoid postoperative nausea and vomiting? Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 393–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Lieu TA, Black SB, Ray GT, et al. The hidden costs of infant vaccination. Vaccine 2000; 19: 33–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Morris J, Perez D. Willingness to pay for new chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. N Z Med J 2000; 113: 143–146

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Poyner TF, Menday AP, Williams ZV. Patient attitudes to topical antipsoriatic treatment with calcipotriol and dithranol. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2000; 14: 153–158

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Nair KV, Ganther JM, Valuck RJ, et al. Impact of multitiered pharmacy benefits on attitudes of plan members with chronic disease states. J Manag Care Pharm 2002; 8 (6): 477–491

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Prosser LA, Ray GT, O’Brien M, et al. Preferences and willingness to pay for health states prevented by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatrics 2004; 113 (2): 283–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sairam K, Kulinskaya E, Hanbury D, et al. Oral sildenafil (Viagra) in male erectile dysfunction: use, efficacy and safety profile in an unselected cohort presenting to a British district general hospital. BMC Urol 2002; 2 (1): 4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sansom SL, Barker L, Corso PS, et al. Rotavirus vaccine and intussusception: how much risk will parents in the United States accept to obtain vaccine benefits? Am J Epidemiol 2001; 154 (11): 1077–1085

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Sevy S, Nathanson K, Schechter C, et al. Contingency valuation and preferences of health states associated with side effects of antipsychotic medications in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2001; 27 (4): 643–651

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Slothuus U, Larsen ML, Junker P. The contingent ranking method: a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for healthcare? Soc Sci Med 2002; 54 (10): 1601–1609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Steiner M, Vermeulen LC, Mullahy J, et al. Factors influencing decisions regarding influenza vaccination and treatment: a survey of healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23 (10): 625–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Unutzer J, Katon WJ, Russo J, et al. Willingness to pay for depression treatment in primary care. Psychiatr Serv 2003; 54 (3): 340–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wu G, Lanctot KL, Herrmann N, et al. The cost-benefit of cholinesterase inhibitors in mild to moderate dementia: a willingness-to-pay approach. CNS Drugs 2003; 17 (14): 1045–1057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Busch S, Falba T, Duchovny N, et al. Value to smokers of improved cessation products: evidence from a willingness-to-pay survey. Nicotine Tob Res 2004; 6 (4): 631–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Carlsson KS, Hojgard S, Lethagen S, et al. Willingness to pay for on-demand and prophylactic treatment for severe haemophilia in Sweden. Haemophilia 2004; 10 (5): 527–541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. van Steenberghe D, Garmyn P, Geers L, et al. Patients’ experience of pain and discomfort during instrumentation in the diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of periodontitis. J Periodontol 2004; 75 (11): 1465–1470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Pennie RA, O’Connor AM, Garvock MJ, et al. Factors influencing the acceptance of hepatitis B vaccine by students in health disciplines in Ottawa. Can J Public Health 1991; 82: 12–15

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Johannesson M, Fagerberg B. A health-economic comparison of diet and drug treatment in obese men with mild hypertension. J Hypertens 1992; 10 (9): 1063–1070

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Ramsey SD, Sullivan SD, Psaty BM, et al. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive care: evidence from a staff-model HMO. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44 (12): 1911–1917

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Stalhammer NO. An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting-point bias. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 242–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. O’Brien BJ, 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 (3): 370–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. McDevitt JT, Gurst AH, Chen Y. Accuracy of tablet splitting. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18 (1): 193–197

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Tang J, Wang B, White PF, et al. The effect of timing of ondansetron administration on its efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting. Anesth Analg 1998; 86 (2): 274–282

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Sorum PC. Measuring patient preferences by willingness to pay to avoid: the case of acute otitis media. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 27–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Keith PK, Haddon J, Birch S. A cost-benefit analysis using a willingness-to-pay questionnaire of intranasal budesonide for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2000; 84: 55–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Slothuus U, Larsen ML, Junker P. Willingness to pay for arthritis symptom alleviation: comparison of closed-ended questions with and without follow-up. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 60–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Ackerson LM, et al. Parents’ preferences for outcomes associated with childhood vaccinations. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19: 129–133

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Eberhart LH, Mauch M, Morin AM, et al. Impact of a multimodal anti-emetic prophylaxis on patient satisfaction in high-risk patients for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anaesthesia 2002; 57 (10): 1022–1027

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Gold MR, Siegal JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  68. OECD. PPPs for GDP: historical series [online]. Available from URL: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/56/1876133.xls [Assessed 2006 Apr 17]

  69. HM Treasury. GDP deflator table [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/463/5D/gdp deflators_290306.xls [Assessed 2006 Apr 17]

  70. European Commission. Council Regulation 2866/98 of 31 December 1998 [online]. Available from URL: http://euro pa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/euro/transition/conversion_rates.htm [Accessed 2006 Apr 17]

  71. World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th revision, version for 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www3.who.int/icd/vol1htm2003/fr-icd.htm [Accessed 2006 Apr 19]

  72. World Bank. Country groups [online]. Available from URL: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Res ources/CLASS.XLS [Accessed 2006 Aug 4]

  73. Frew EJ, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK. Eliciting relative preferences for two methods of colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Cancer Care 2005; 14 (2): 124–131

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Frew EJ, Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK. Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats. Health Policy 2004; 68 (3): 289–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Frew EJ, Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL. Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Med Decis Making 2003; 23 (2): 150–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Whynes DK, Frew EJ, Wolstenholme JL. Willingness-to-pay and demand curves: a comparison of results obtained using different elicitation formats. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 2005; 5 (4): 369–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL, Frew E. Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales. Health Econ 2004; 13 (2): 183–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Whynes DK, Frew E, Wolstenholme JL. A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. J Health Econ 2003; 22 (4): 555–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE technology appraisal guidance no. 55: guidance on the use of paclitaxel in the treatment of ovarian cancer. London: NICE, 2003 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/download.aspx?o=TA055guidance [Accesssed 2006 Dec 12]

    Google Scholar 

  80. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE technology appraisal guidance no. 19: guidance on the use of doneqezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine for the treatment of alzheimers disease. London: NICE, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  81. Miners AH, Sabin CA, Tolley KH, et al. Cost-utility analysis of primary prophylaxis versus treatment on-demand for individuals with severe haemophilia. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 759–774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE technology appraisal guidance no. 36: guidance on the use of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. London: NICE, 2002 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/download.aspx?o=TA036guidance [Accesssed 2006 Dec 12]

    Google Scholar 

  83. Ranson MK, Jha P, Chaloupka FJ, et al. Global and regional estimates of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of price increases and other tobacco control policies. Nicotine Tob Res 2002; 4: 311–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY: theoretical and methodological issues. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (5): 423–432

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, et al. Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976–2001. Value Health 2005 Jan–Feb; 8 (1): 3–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Liljas B, Lindgren B. On individual preferences and aggregation in economic evaluation in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (4): 323–335

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal, April 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/ TAP_Methods.pdf [Assessed 2006 Apr 28]

  88. Drummond M, Brandt A, Luce B, et al. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care: practice, problems, and potential. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9 (1): 26–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Yeung RYT, Smith RD. Can we use contingent valuation to assess the demand for childhood immunisation in developing countries? A systematic review of the literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005; 4 (3): 165–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to undertake this review and the authors have no conflicts of interest. The study is based, in part, on work presented at the 5th World congress of the International Health Economics Association in Barcelona, 10–13th July 2005. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors only and they accept full responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies that may remain.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, 13th floor Tower building, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

    Tracey H. Sach

  2. Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    Richard D. Smith

  3. School of Economics, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK

    David K. Whynes

Authors
  1. Tracey H. Sach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard D. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David K. Whynes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tracey H. Sach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sach, T.H., Smith, R.D. & Whynes, D.K. A ‘League Table’ of Contingent Valuation Results for Pharmaceutical Interventions. Pharmacoeconomics 25, 107–127 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725020-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200725020-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation