Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 8/2009

01-08-2009 | Original Research Article

Determinants of Willingness to Pay for a New Therapy in a Sample of Menopausal-Aged Women

Authors: Andrej Rasch, Jan-Marc Hodek, Claus Runge, Wolfgang Greiner

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 8/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Background: Menopause is a natural physiological event that usually begins in women between the ages of 48 and 55 years. In many cases, this event is associated with unpleasant somatic-vegetative, urogenital or psychological symptoms.
Objective: To test the health and social demographic factors (especially household income level) that influence willingness to pay (WTP) for a new hormone-free treatment in women of menopausal age.
Methods: 1365 women between the ages of 45 and 73 years were surveyed about their health and WTP for the new treatment. WTP was evaluated with a closed-ended binary questionnaire (four groups with different levels of co-payment between €15 and €60), using the contingent valuation method. The average WTP was calculated according to the area under the demand function. Factors contributing to payment readiness were examined by means of binary logistic regression.
Results: WTP was significantly affected by women’s opinion of the new medication, the level of co-payment required, net household income, whether currently in treatment for menopausal symptoms, and Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) values. Compared with other factors, the level of co-payment was predicted to have a negative impact on WTP. Income level is an important factor in WTP and correlates highly with several other health-related variables (WHO-5 index, MRS value, receipt of other menopause medicines and existing co-morbidity). The average co-payment that our group of women was willing to pay was between €17 and €35 per month, or €24 to €42 for women who were currently receiving treatment for symptoms of menopause. While interpreting the results, it should be considered that the hypothetical therapy was assumed to be a new non-reimbursable alternative to conventional therapy offered under the existing statutory framework for health insurance in Germany.
Conclusions: Despite some methodological limitations, these results are useful for examining the factors affecting WTP and incremental utilities for future medicine dealing with menopause.
Literature
1.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
2.
Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993; 58 (10): 4602–14
3.
Portney PR. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. J Econ Perspect 1994; 8 (4): 3–17CrossRef
4.
Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. Use of contingent valuation to place a monetary value on pharmacy services: an overview and review of the literature. Clin Ther 1999; 21 (8): 1402–17PubMedCrossRef
5.
Johannesson M, Johansson PO, Kristrom B, et al. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy: further results. J Health Econ 1993; 12 (1): 95–108PubMedCrossRef
6.
Mahadevia P, Shah S, Mannix S, et al. Willingness to pay for sensory attributes of intranasal corticosteroids among patients with allergic rhinitis. J Manag Care Pharm 2006; 12 (2): 143–51PubMed
7.
Marra CA, Frighetto L, Goodfellow AF, et al. Willingness to pay to assess patient preferences for therapy in a Canadian setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2005; 5 (1): 43PubMedCrossRef
8.
Unutzer J, Katon WJ, Russo J, et al. Willingness to pay for depression treatment in primary care. Psychiatr Serv 2003; 54 (3): 340–5PubMedCrossRef
9.
Weston A, Fitzgerald P. Discrete choice experiment to derive willingness to pay for methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy versus simple excision surgery in basal cell carcinoma. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (18): 1195–208PubMedCrossRef
10.
Yasunaga H, Ide H, Imamura T, et al. Benefit evaluation of mass screening for prostate cancer: willingness-to-pay measurement using contingent valuation. Urology 2006; 68 (5): 1046–50PubMedCrossRef
11.
Hammerschmidt T, Zeitler HP, Leidl R. A utility-theoretic approach to the aggregation of willingness to pay measured in decomposed scenarios: development and empirical test. Health Econ 2004; 13 (4): 345–61PubMedCrossRef
12.
Kerger H, Turan A, Kredel M, et al. Patients’ willingness to pay for anti-emetic treatment. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2007; 51 (1): 38–43PubMedCrossRef
13.
Wiesemann A, Mueller-Buehl U, Scheidt R, et al. Patient willingness to pay for preventive measures in primary care: a study of five GPs in a German community. Soz Praventivmed 2004; 49 (4): 254–60PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
Schöffski O. Nutzentheoretische Lebensqualitätsmessung. In: Schöffski O, Schulenburg JM, editors. Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluationen. 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer, 2007
16.
Smith RD. The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines? Med Decis Making 2000; 20 (2): 194–206PubMedCrossRef
17.
Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ 1998; 7 (4): 313–26PubMedCrossRef
18.
Hackl F, Pruckner GJ. Warm glow, free-riding and vehicle neutrality in a health-related contingent valuation study. Health Econ 2005; 14 (3): 293–306PubMedCrossRef
19.
Yeung RY, Smith RD, Ho LM, et al. Empirical implications of response acquiescence in discrete-choice contingent valuation. Health Econ 2006; 15 (10): 1077–89PubMedCrossRef
20.
Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment. Vol. 3. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada, 2004
21.
Schneider HPG. Menopause hormone replacement therapy and quality of life. In: Erkkola R, editor. The menopause. Edinburgh: Elsevier, 2006
22.
Milsom I. Menopause-related symptoms and their treatment. In: Erkkola R, editor. The menopause. Edinburgh: Elsevier, 2006
23.
Rodstrom K, Bengtsson C, Lissner L, et al. A longitudinal study of the treatment of hot flushes: the population study of women in Gothenburg during a quarter of a century. Menopause 2002; 9 (3): 156–61PubMedCrossRef
24.
Hickey M, Davis SR, Sturdee DW. Treatment of menopausal symptoms: what shall we do now? Lancet 2005; 366 (9483): 409–21PubMedCrossRef
25.
Daly E, Gray A, Barlow D, et al. Measuring the impact of menopausal symptoms on quality of life. BMJ 1993; 307 (6908): 836–40PubMedCrossRef
26.
The North American Menopause Society. Clinical challenges of perimenopause: consensus opinion of the North American Menopause Society. Menopause 2007; 7 (1): 5–13
27.
Eberhardt S, Kulp W, Schulenburg JM, et al. Hormones for therapy of climacteric afflictions. GMS Health Technol Assess 2007; 3 (Doc03): 1–145
28.
29.
Gunther OH, Konig HH. Decision makers’ and scientists’ opinion about contingent valuation and choice experiments for measuring willingness to pay in health care: results from a survey in Germany. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22 (3): 351–61PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA). Richtlinien des Bundesausschusses der Ärzte und Krankenkassen über die Verordnung von Arzneimitteln in der vertragsärztlichen Versorgung (“Arzneimittel-Richtlinien/AMR”), Nr. 20.2. 18–1-2007 BAnz. Nr. 70: 3821
32.
Rote Liste. Arzneimittelverzeichnis für Deutschland. Frankfurt: Rote Liste Service, 2008
33.
Potthoff P, Heinemann LAJ, Güther B. A household panel as a tool for cost-effective health-related population surveys: validity of the ‘Healthcare Access Panel’. German Medical Science 2004; 02 (Doc05): 1–8
34.
Heinemann K, Ruebig A, Potthoff P, et al. The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS): a methodological review. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2: 45PubMedCrossRef
35.
Heinemann LA, DoMinh T, Strelow F, et al. The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) as outcome measure for hormone treatment? A validation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2: 67PubMedCrossRef
36.
Schneider HP, Heinemann LA, Rosemeier HP, et al. The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS): comparison with Kupperman index and quality-of-life scale SF-36. Climacteric 2000; 3 (1): 50–8PubMedCrossRef
37.
Zollner YF, Acquadro C, Schaefer M. Literature review of instruments to assess health-related quality of life during and after menopause. Qual Life Res 2005; 14 (2): 309–27PubMedCrossRef
38.
Bonsignore M, Barkow K, Jessen F, et al. Validity of the five-item WHO Well-Being Index (WHO-5) in an elderly population. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2001; 251 Suppl. 2: II27–31CrossRef
39.
Primack BA. The WHO-5 Wellbeing Index performed the best in screening for depression in primary care [abstract]. ACP J Club 2003; 139 (2): 48PubMed
40.
Donaldson C, Jones AM, Mapp TJ, et al. Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care. Appl Econ 1998; 30: 667–77CrossRef
41.
Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications, 2005
42.
Zethraeus N, Johannesson M, Henriksson P, et al. The impact of hormone replacement therapy on quality of life and willingness to pay. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104 (10): 1191–5PubMedCrossRef
43.
44.
Barner JC, Branvold A. Patients’ willingness to pay for pharmacist-provided menopause and hormone replacement therapy consultations. Res Social Adm Pharm 2005; 1 (1): 77–100PubMedCrossRef
45.
Morris EP. The impact of hormone replacement therapy on quality of life and willingness to pay [letter]. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106 (6): 614PubMed
46.
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): 1911–7PubMedCrossRef
47.
van der Schouw YT, van der GY, Steyerberg EW, et al. Age at menopause as a risk factor for cardiovascular mortality. Lancet 1996; 347 (9003): 714–8PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Determinants of Willingness to Pay for a New Therapy in a Sample of Menopausal-Aged Women
Authors
Andrej Rasch
Jan-Marc Hodek
Claus Runge
Wolfgang Greiner
Publication date
01-08-2009
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 8/2009
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11312740-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 8/2009

PharmacoEconomics 8/2009 Go to the issue

Leading Article

A Decision-Theoretic Framework for the Application of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Regulatory Processes

Leading Article

Estimating Drug Costs in Economic Evaluations in Ireland and the UK

Leading Article

Case-Control Studies in Pharmacoeconomic Research

Review Article

Economic Burden of Follicular Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Editorial

Legal and Economic Perspectives Concerning US Government Investigations of Alleged Off-Label Promotion by Drug Manufacturers

Original Research Article

The Cost of Disability and Medically Related Absenteeism Among Employees with Multiple Sclerosis in the US