Premium
Willingness to pay for on‐demand and prophylactic treatment for severe haemophilia in Sweden
Author(s) -
Carlsson K. Steen,
Höjgård S.,
Lethagen S.,
Lindgren A.,
Berntorp E.,
Lindgren B.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
haemophilia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.213
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 1365-2516
pISSN - 1351-8216
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2004.00954.x
Subject(s) - willingness to pay , medicine , contingent valuation , confidence interval , haemophilia , population , limiting , actuarial science , pediatrics , economics , environmental health , microeconomics , mechanical engineering , engineering
Summary. The objective of the present paper was to provide an estimate of the benefits of on‐demand and prophylaxis treatment strategies for severe haemophilia in monetary terms. Using the contingent‐valuation method, which simulates a missing market by asking people about their willingness to pay (WTP), we asked a representative sample ( n = 609) of the Swedish population if they would be willing to pay a specific amount (bid) so that patients with severe haemophilia could receive on‐demand treatment and another bid for prophylactic treatment. Different respondents were offered different bids and the bid vector ranged from 71 Euro cents to EUR 130. The order of the bid questions was randomized so that half of the respondents were asked first about their WTP for on‐demand treatment, and then about their WTP for prophylaxis, while the order was reversed for the other half of the respondents. The mean estimated WTP (year 2002) was EUR 39 (95% CI 31–47) for on‐demand and EUR 65 (95% CI 55–73) for prophylaxis. Our sensitivity analysis showed that the ranking of the two treatment alternatives was robust in that the WTP was greater for prophylaxis in all possible subsets. The point estimates of WTP varied somewhat in subsets defined by individual characteristics, but confidence intervals always overlapped that of the main results. The WTP for on‐demand and prophylaxis exceeded the calculated cost of treatment per taxpayer of providing on‐demand and prophylactic treatment, respectively, based on our previous results [1].