Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Willingness To Pay

What’s in a Name?

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite renewed enthusiasm for the use of willingness to pay (WTP) in healthcare applications, there are still a lot of objections, resentment and scepticism regarding the desirability and feasibility of this technique. Objections can be classified into different categories: e.g. theoretical, feasibility of measurement, misunderstanding of economic concepts and emotional. In this commentary, I have tried to explain the nature of the ‘emotional’ objections to the use of WTP. I argue that such objections are not helpful and distract attention from the proper scientific debates about the important topics of theoretical foundation for economic evaluations and feasibility of measurement of individuals’ WTP. I believe that some of the emotional objections to WTP stem from perceptions about the relationship between the WTP measure and actual payment for health services. Hence, I discuss the use of the WTP methodology in 2 distinct contexts — cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and market research. Understanding the difference between these 2 most common areas of use will help alleviate objections based on emotions, allow us to use the technique where there seems to be no objections to its use (i.e. market research) and concentrate on the scientific debate where objections exist (i.e. the case of CBA).

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johannesson M, Jonsson B. Economic evaluation in health care:is there a role for cost-benefit analysis? Health Policy 1991;17: 1–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pauly MV. Valuing health care benefits in monetary terms. In:Sloan FA, editor. Valuing health care. Cambridge (MA): CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995: 99–124

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Culyer AJ, Evans RG. Mark Pauly on welfare economics: normativerabbits from positive hats. J Health Econ 1996; 15:243–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Weinstein MC, Manning WG. Theoretical issues in cost-effectivenessanalysis. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 121–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kenkel D. On valuing morbidity, cost-effectiveness analysis,and being rude. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 121–8

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gafni A, Birch S. Preferences for outcomes in economic evaluation:an economic approach to addressing economic problems.Soc Sci Med 1995; 40: 767–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gafni A. Proper preference-based outcome measures in economicevaluations of pharmaceutical interventions. Med Care1996; 34 Suppl.12: DS48–58

    Google Scholar 

  8. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV, Elstein AS, et al. Clinical decisionanalysis. Philadelphia (PA): W.B. Saunders Co., 1980

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mooney G. The economics of health and medicine. Brighton:Wheatsheaf, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  10. Garber AM, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW, et al. Theoreticalfoundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996: 25–53

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zeckhauser R. Procedures for valuing lives. Public Policy 1975;23: 419–64

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schelling T. The life you save may be your own. In: Chase B,editor. Problems in public expenditures analysis. Washington,DC: The Brookings Institution, 1968: 127–76

  13. Gafni A. Willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits. Med Care1991; 29: 1246–52

  14. O’Brien B, Gafni A. When do the ‘dollars’ make sense? Towarda conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies inhealth care. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 288–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mishan EJ. Elements of cost-benefit analysis. London: GeorgeAllen and Unwin Ltd, 1972

    Google Scholar 

  16. Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for theeconomic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  17. Drummond M, Jonsson B, Rutten F. The role of economic evaluationin the pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Health Policy 1997; 40: 199–215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. O’Brien B, Goeree R, Gafni A, et al. Assessing the value of anew pharmaceutical: a feasibility study of contingent valuationin managed care. Med Care 1998; 36: 370–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 3Z5, Canada

    Amiram Gafni

Authors
  1. Amiram Gafni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amiram Gafni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gafni, A. Willingness To Pay. Pharmacoeconomics 14, 465–470 (1998). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199814050-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199814050-00001

Keywords

Search

Navigation