Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:20:35.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valuing the Benefit for Cancer Patients of Receiving Blood Transfusions at Home

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Nathalie Havet ,
Magali Morelle ,
Raphaël Remonnay  and
Marie-Odile Carrere
Nathalie Havet
Affiliation:
University of Lyon-Saint-Etienne, GATE, CNRS-UMR 5824
Magali Morelle
Affiliation:
University of Lyon-Saint-Etienne, GATE, CNRS-UMR 5824 University of Lyon-Saint-Etienne, GATE, CNRS-UMR 5824, Centre Léon Bérard
Raphaël Remonnay
Affiliation:
University of Lyon-Saint-Etienne, GATE, CNRS-UMR 5824 University of Lyon-Saint-Etienne, GATE, CNRS-UMR 5824, Centre Léon Bérard
Marie-Odile Carrere
Affiliation:
University of Lyon-Saint-Etienne, GATE, CNRS-UMR 5824 University of Lyon-Saint-Etienne, GATE, CNRS-UMR 5824, Centre Léon Bérard
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the field of health care management, contingent valuation surveys (CV) are used in cost benefit analyses (CBA) to elicit patients’ monetary valuation of program benefits. We considered the empirical situation of blood transfusions (BT) in cancer patients. Before planning such a CBA, we had to make sure that the CV approach could be used in a particularly critical clinical situation to estimate the marginal benefit of changing from hospital BT to home BT. The fact that the CV approach is feasible and acceptable to severely ill patients was not taken for granted a priori.

We measured patient’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) for home BT in a sample of 139 patients who received transfusions either at home or in the hospital. After considering patient’s participation to the survey and protest responses, we identified possible determinants of WTP values derived from previous knowledge, then we compared their expected influences to predicted influences resulting from econometric analysis to assess the validity of our results. Participation was high (90%) and few patients gave protest responses. Most patients (65%) had received home care, including 43% BT. The median WTP for home BT was 26.5 € per patient.

Good consistency was observed between the expected and predicted influences of possible determinants of WTP. The anchoring bias hypothesis was confirmed. The WTP for home BT increased with previous experience of home care, age, living far from the hospital and low quality of life. Our CV approach is thus a first contribution to the debate on the appropriateness of generalizing access to home BT. However, our results would be worth confirming with a formal cost-benefit analysis.

Keywords

contingent valuationblood transfusionhome care servicesoncology
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , 25 August 2011 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2011

References

Ademokun, A., Kaznica, S., Deas, S.: Home blood transfusion: a necessary service development. Transfus Med. 15, 219-222 (2005).Google Scholar
Amemiya, T.: Tobit models: a survey. J Econometrics. 24, 3-61 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, K., Balducci, L., Milo, K., Heckel, L., Lyman, G.: Patient’s attitude regarding out-of hospital blood transfusion. Transfusion. 36, 140-143 (1996).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benson, K., Popovsky, M.A., Hines, D., Hume, H., Oberman, H.A., Glassman, A.B., Pisciotto, P.T., Thurer, R.L., Stehling, L., Anderson, K.C.: Nationwide survey of home transfusion practices. Transfusion. 38, 90-96 (1998).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benson, K.: Home is where the heart is: do blood transfusions belong there too? Transfus Med Rev. 20(3), 218-229 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borras, JM., Sanchez-Hernandez, A., Navarro, M., Martinez, M., Mendez, E., Ponton, JL. et al.: Compliance, satisfaction, and quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer receiving home chemotherapy or outpatient treatment: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 322(7290), 826-30 (2001).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buthion, V.: Organisation de la transfusion sanguine thérapeutique: Etude des modalités alternatives de la transfusion sanguine thérapeutique organisable en ambulatoire. Rapport de recherche. https://sites.google.com/site/buthionvalerie/in-the-news/parution. (2009).Google Scholar
Caplan, GA., Ward, JA., Brennan, NJ., Coconis, J., Board, N. et al.: Hospital in the home: a randomised controlled trial. Med J Aust. 170(4), 156-60 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cawley, J.: Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity. Econ Hum Biol. 6(2), 281-292 (2008).Google Scholar
Cella, DF., Tulsky, DS., Gray, G. et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: development and validation of the general measure. J. Clin. Oncol. 11(3), 570-579 (1993).Google Scholar
Dalmau-Matarrodona, E.: Alternative Approaches to obtain optimal bid values in contingent valuation studies and to model protest zeros. Estimating the determinants of individual’s willingness to pay for home care services in day case surgery. Health Econ. 16, 101-118 (2001).Google Scholar
Devlin, B., Agnew, A.: An evaluation of domiciliary blood transfusion service for palliative care patients in Northern Ireland. Community Pract. 81, 32-5 (2008).Google Scholar
Donaldson, C.: Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: Does ‘ability to pay’ preclude the use of willingness to pay. Soc. Sci. Med. 49, 551-563 (1999).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donaldson, C., Jones, A., Mapp, T., Olson, JA.: Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care. Appl. Econ. 30, 667-677 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, C., Shackley, P.: Does “process utility” exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Social Science and Medicine. 44(5), 699-707 (1999).Google Scholar
Drummond, MF., Sculpher, MJ., Torrance, GW., O’Brien, B., Stoddart, GL.: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Third Edition. Oxford, Oxford University press (2005).Google Scholar
Emanuel, EJ.: Cost saving at the end of life. What do the data show? JAMA, 275, 1907-1914 (1996).Google Scholar
Flachaire, E., Hollard, G.: Starting point bias and respondent’s uncertainty. Resource and Energy Econ. 29, 183-194 (2007).Google Scholar
Franks, PJ., Salisbury, C., Bosanquet, N., Wilkinson, EK. et al.: The level of need for palliative care: a systematic review of the literature. Palliat Med. 14(2), 93-104 (2000).Google Scholar
Haefeli, M., Elfering, A., McIntosh, E., Gray, A., Sukthankar, A., Boos, N.: A Cost-Benefit Analysis Using Contingent Valuation Techniques: A Feasibility Study in Spinal Surgery. Value in Health. 11(4), 575-588 (2008).Google Scholar
Havet, N., Morelle, M., Remonnay, R., Carrère, M-O.: Cancer patients’ willingness to pay for blood transfusions at home: results from a contingent valuation study in a French cancer network. Eur J Health Econ., June, forthcoming, (2011).Google Scholar
Herriges, JA., Shogren, JF.: Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 30(1), 112-131 (1996).Google Scholar
Johannesson, M., Johansson, PO., Kristrom, B., Gerdtham, UG.: Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy- further results. J. Health Econ. 12, 95-108 (1993).Google Scholar
Johannesson, M., Jonsson, B., Borgquist, L.: Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy- results of a Swedish pilot study. J. Health Econ. 10, 461-474 (1991).Google Scholar
Jorgensen, BS., Wilson, MA., Heberlein, TA.: Fairness in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental Integrated knowledge for ecological economics: a database to support ecosystem services evaluation. Ecological Economics 36, 133-148 (2000).Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under risk. Econometrica. 47, 263-291 (1979).Google Scholar
King, MT., Hall, J., Caleo, S., Gurney, HP., Harnett, PR.: Home or hospital ? An evaluation of the costs, preferences, and outcomes of domiciliary chemotherapy. Int J Health Serv. 30(3), 557-79 (2000).Google Scholar
Mahmud, M.: Contingent Valuation of Mortality Risk Reduction in Developing Countries: A Mission Impossible? Keele Economics Research Papers. 1 (2006).Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, J., Liebe, U.: Protest Beliefs in Contingent Valuation: Explaining Their Motivation. Ecological Economics. 57(3), 583-594 (2006).Google Scholar
Mitchell, RC., Carson, RT.: Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press (1989).Google Scholar
Moumjid, N., Brémond, A., Mignotte, H., Faure, C., Meunier, A., Carrère, MO.: Shared decision-making in the physician-patient encounter in France: a general overview. Arztl. Fortbild. Qualtitatssich. 101(4), 223-228 (2007).Google Scholar
Narbro, K., Sjostrom, L.: Willingness to pay for obesity treatment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16(1), 50-59 (2000).Google Scholar
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Natural resource damage assessments: proposed rules. Fed Reg. 59, 1062-1191 (1993).Google Scholar
Neumann, PJ., Johannesson, M.: The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilization: a pilot study using contingent valuation. Med Care. 32 (7), 686-699 (1994).Google Scholar
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. 16, 288-299 (1996).Google Scholar
Olsen, JA., Smith, R.: Theory versus practice: A review of willingness to pay in health and health care. Health Econ. 10, 39-52 (2001).Google Scholar
Ortega, A., Dranitsaris, G., Puodziunas, AL.: What are cancer patients willing to pay for prophylactic epoetin alfa? A cost-benefit analysis. Cancer. 83(12), 2588-2596 (1998).Google Scholar
Ramsey, SD., Sullivan, SD., Psaty, BM., Patrick, DL.: Willingness to pay for antihypertensive care: evidence from a staff-model HMO. Soc Sci Med. 44(12), 1911-1917 (1997).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, M.: Should Government Fund Assisted Reproductive Techniques? A Study Using Willingness to Pay. Appl. Econ. 29(7), 841-849 (1997).Google Scholar
Ryan, M.: Valuing Psychological Factors in the Provision of Assisted Reproductive Techniques Using the Economic Instrument of Willingness to Pay. J Econ Psychol.. 19(2), 179-204 (1998).Google Scholar
Ryan, M., Shackley, P.: Assessing the benefits of health care: how far should we go? Quality in Health Care. 4, 207-213 (1995).Google Scholar
Sayman, S., Onculer, A.: Effects of study design characteristics on the WTAWTP disparity: A meta analytical framework. J Econ Psychol. 26, 289-312 (2005).Google Scholar
Shackley, P., Donaldson, C.: Willingness to pay for publicly-financed health care: how should we use the numbers? Appl. Econ. 32, 2015-2021 (2000).Google Scholar
Smith, RD.: Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Econ. 12, 609-628 (2003).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R.D.: It’s Not Just What You Do, It’s the Way That You Do It: The Effect of Different Payment Card Formats and Survey Administration on Willingness to Pay for Health Gain. Health Econ. 15, 281-293 (2006).Google Scholar
Smith, R.D.: The role of ‘reference goods’ in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to ‘construct’ their willingness to pay? Health Econ. 16, 1319-1332. (2007 a)Google Scholar
Smith, R.D.: Use, option and externality values: are contingent valuation studies in health care mis-specified? Health Econ. 16, 861-869. (2007 b)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R., Olsen, JA., Harris, A.: A review of methodological issues in the conduct of willingness to pay studies in health care III: issues in the analysis and interpretation of WTP data. Centre for Heath Program Evaluation, Monash University, working paper 86 (1999).Google Scholar
Van der Pol, M., Cairns, J.: Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 3, 70-6 (1998).Google Scholar
Whynes, DK., Frew, E., Wolstenholme, JL.: A Comparison of Two Methods for Eliciting Contingent Valuations of Colorectal Cancer Screening. J. Health Econ. 22(4), 555-574 (2003).Google Scholar
Wordsworth, S., Ryan, M., Waugh, N.: Costs and benefits of cervical screening IV: valuation by women of the cervical screening programme. Cytopathology. 12(6), 367-376 (2001).Google Scholar
Zimmermann, C., Riechelmann, R., Krzyzanowska, M., Rodin, G., Tannonck, I.: Effectiveness of specialized care: A systematic review. JAMA, 299, 1698-1709 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed