Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:01:52.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Willingness to pay for alternative policies for patients with Alzheimer’s Disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2008

MIGUEL A. NEGRÍN ,
JAIME PINILLA  and
CARMELO J. LEÓN
MIGUEL A. NEGRÍN*
Affiliation:
Department of Quantitative Methods, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
JAIME PINILLA
Affiliation:
Department of Quantitative Methods, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
CARMELO J. LEÓN
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Economics, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
*
* Corresponding author: Miguel A. Negrín, Módulo D. D-4.08, Dept. Métodos Cuantitativos, Fac. Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017. Las Palmas de G.C.Spain. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper focuses on eliciting the willingness to pay (WTP) for policy measures aimed at improving the health care offered to patients suffering from Alzheimer’s disease (AD). We utilize a discrete choice experiment (DCE) approach for the elicitation of the preferences of the general population for three alternative policies: home care, day care centres, and medium or long-stay centres. The results show that these policies are significantly valued across the surveyed population. The monthly WTP per hour of home care is estimated as €4 per individual, while the monthly WTP values for full population coverage in day centres and medium–long-stay centres are estimated as €0.43 and €0.42 respectively. We compare the results of classical and Bayesian estimation methods, and conclude that the latter provide a better representation of the heterogeneity in the sample. The results are significant for health care, as they enable policymakers to identify the social demand for such services, as well as the relative economic values placed on the alternative policy measures.

Type
Articles
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 257 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamowicz, W., Swait, J.,Boxall, P., Louviere, J., and Williams, M. (1997), ‘Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32: 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allenby, G.M. and Ginter, J.L. (1995), ‘Using extremes to design products and segment markets’, Journal of Marketing Research, 32: 392–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S. (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bhat, C. (2001), ‘Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model’, Transportation Research, 35B: 677–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonato, D.,Nocera, S., and Telser, H. (2003), The Contingent Valuation Method in Health Care: An Economic Evaluation of Alzheimer’s Disease, Boston, Dordrecht, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Bostedt, G. and Boman, M. (1996), ‘Nonresponse in contingent valuation-reducing uncertainty in value inference’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 8: 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownstone, D. and Train, K.E. (1999), ‘Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns’, Journal of Econometrics, 89: 109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F. and Martinsson, P. (2003), ‘Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics’, Health Economics, 12: 281–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FerriCleusa, P. Cleusa, P., Martin, Prince, Carol, Brayne et al. . (2005), ‘Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study’, Lancet, 366: 2112–2117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Confederación Española de Familiares de Enfermos de Alzheimer (CEFA) (2006), www.ceafa.org/Google Scholar
Cookson, R. (2003), ‘Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view’, Health Economics, 11: 891–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diener, A., O’Brien, B., and Gafni, A. (1998), ‘Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature’, Health Economics, 7: 313–326.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Domeneich, T. and McFadden, D. (1975), Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioural Analysis, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Federer, W.T. and Raghavarao, R. (1987), ‘Response models and minimal designs for mixtures of n of m items useful for intercropping and other investigations’, Biometrica, 74(3): 571–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, P.J., Kohatsu, N., Max, W., and Arnsberger, P. (2001), ‘Estimating costs of caring for people with Alzheimer’s Disease in California: 2000–2040’, Journal of Public Health Policy, 22(1): 88–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilks, W.R., Richardson, S., and Spiegelhalter, D.J. (1996), Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Hebert, L., Scherr, P.A., Beckett, L.A. et al. (1995), ‘Age specific incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in a community population’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 273: 1343–1359.Google Scholar
Hensher, D.A. (1994), ‘Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice’, Transportation, 21: 107–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, D.A. and Greene, W.H. (2003), ‘The mixed logit model: the state of practice’, Transportation, 30: 133–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J., and Greene, W.H. (2005), ‘The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes’, Transportation, 32: 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. and Zwerina, K. (1996), ‘The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs’, Journal of Marketing Research, 33: 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J. and Train, K. (2001), ‘On the similarity of classical and Bayesian estimates of individual mean parthworths’, Marketing Letters, 12: 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klose, T. (1999), ‘The contingent valuation method in health care’, Health Policy, 47: 97–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhfeld, W.F. (2001), ‘Multinomial logit, discrete choice modeling’, SAS Institute, http://ftp.sas.com/techsup/download/technote/ts643.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kukull, W.A., Higdon, R. et al. (2002), ‘Dementia and Alzheimer Disease incidence: a prospective cohort study’, Archives of Neurology, 59: 1737–1746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lancaster, K. (1966), ‘A new approach to consumer theory’, Journal of Political Economy, 84: 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, E.B., Shadlen, M.-F. et al. (2004), ‘Survival after initial diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease’, Annals of Internal Medicine, 6: 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layton, D.F. and Brown, G. (2000), ‘Heterogeneous preferences regarding global climate change’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82: 616–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenk, P.J., DeSarbo, W.S., Green, P.E., and Young, M.R. (1996), ‘Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs’, Marketing Science, 15: 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, J.J. (1994), ‘Conjoint analysis’, in Bagozzi, R. (ed.), Advanced Methods of Marketing Research, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 223–259.Google Scholar
Luce, R.D. and Tukey, J.W. (1964), ‘Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, C. (1977), ‘The structure of random utility models’, Theory and Decision, 8: 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. and Train, K. (2000), ‘Mixed logit models for discrete response’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15: 447–470.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nocera, S., Telser, H., and Bonato, D. (2001), The Contingent Valuation Method in Health Care: An Economic Evaluation of Alzheimer’s Disease, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Nocera, S., Bonato, D., and Telser, H. (2002), ‘The contingency of contingent valuation: how much are people willing to pay against Alzheimer’s Disease?’, International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, 2: 219–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, C.J., Gauthier, S., Bergman, H., Cohen, C.A., Feightner, J.W., Feldman, H., and Hogan, D.B. (1999), ‘The recognition, assessment and management of dementing disorders: conclusion from the Canadian Consensus Conference on Dementia’, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 160: S1–S15.Google Scholar
Ryan, M. and Hughes, J. (1997), ‘Using conjoint analysis to value surgical versus medical management of miscarriage’, Health Economics, 6: 261–273.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M. and Bate, A. (2001), ‘Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care’, Applied Economic Letters, 8: 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
San Miguel, R., Ryan, M., and Mcintosh, E. (1999), ‘Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to Menorrahia’, Applied Economics, 32: 822–833.Google Scholar
Schumock, G.T. (1998), ‘Economic considerations in the treatment and management of Alzheimer's disease’, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 55: 17–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Small, G.W., McDonnell, D.D., Brooks, R.L., and Papadopoulos, G. (2002), ‘The impact of symptom severity on the cost of Alzheimer’s Disease’, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 50(2): 321–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Train, K. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization (2001), International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar