Hostname: page-component-6b88cc9666-mbxxb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-13T06:47:23.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR LUNG CANCER TREATMENT: PATIENT VERSUS GENERAL PUBLIC VALUES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2015

Sumitra Thongprasert ,
Bruce Crawford ,
Rungpetch Sakulbumrungsil ,
Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk ,
Sirinthip Petcharapiruch ,
Jittrakul Leartsakulpanitch  and
Unchalee Permsuwan
Sumitra Thongprasert
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University
Bruce Crawford
Affiliation:
Adelphi Values bcrawford@jp.imshealth.com
Rungpetch Sakulbumrungsil
Affiliation:
Chulalongkorn University
Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
Affiliation:
Monash University Sunway Campus
Sirinthip Petcharapiruch
Affiliation:
Pfizer (Thailand)
Jittrakul Leartsakulpanitch
Affiliation:
Pfizer (Thailand)
Unchalee Permsuwan
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Lung cancer has been the most common cancer since 1985, accounting for 12–13 percent of cancer cases worldwide. Newer targeted therapies with potential increased survival benefits may not be affordable to patients. Many countries use arbitrary thresholds to determine whether a medical intervention is cost-effective. As such, many effective, albeit expensive, therapies are not being reimbursed. To understand the value placed on effective therapies, this study evaluates the patient and public willingness to pay (WTP) for a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for lung cancer treatments using Thailand as an example.

Methods: A total of 300 subjects responded to hypothetical lung cancer health states, described by three levels of severity and two levels of side effects, and provided their valuation of the level of quality of life and their WTP to improve from one state to another.

Results: The patients with the lowest income and general public were willing to pay more than twice the threshold for acceptability in Thailand (US Dollar 5,123/QALY [Thai Baht 160,000/QALY]). This increased significantly by wealth category. Patients’ WTP was associated with quality of life, financial difficulties, health insurance, diarrhea, and wealth.

Conclusions: The current study highlights the value patients and general public place on effective lung cancer therapies.

Keywords

Lung cancerWillingness-to-payHealth economicsCancer treatmentPharmacoeconomics

Information

Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , 2015 , pp. 264 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. International Agency for Research on Cancer and Cancer Research UK. CancerStats: Cancer worldwide. London: Cancer Research UK; 2011.Google Scholar
2. International Agency for Research on Cancer and Cancer Research UK. World cancer factsheet. London: Cancer Research UK; 2012.Google Scholar
3. Lang, HC. Willingness to pay for lung cancer treatment. Value Health. 2010;13:743–749.Google Scholar
4. Chaikledkaew, U, Teerawattananon, Y. Thai Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guideline. Edition 2. Bangkok, Thailand: Watcharin Print Publisher; 2014.Google Scholar
5. Thavorncharoensap, M, Leelahavarong, P, Doungthipsirkul, S, Sompitak, S, Teerawattananon, Y. Assessing a societal value for a ceiling threshold in Thailand. Health intervention and technology assessment (HITAP). Nonthaburi, Thailand: Ministry of Public Health; 2013.Google Scholar
6. Tongsiri, S. The Thai population-based preference scores for EQ-5D health states. Bangkok, Thailand: Ministry of Public Health; 2009.Google Scholar
7. Fayers, P, Aaronson, N, Bjordal, K, et al. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual (3rd ed.). Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.Google Scholar
8. Klose, T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 1999;47:97–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Srisuchart, S. The development of a Thai household asset index: A case study from the pattern of household assets in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Professor Sangwien Intarawichai Conference, Nov 2010, Thammasat Business School, Thammasat University, 2010.Google Scholar
10. Thamlikitkul, V. Chairman of NLEM subcommittee. Announced at the NLEM submission 2012–2015. 2013.Google Scholar
11. Thongprasert, S, Permsuwan, U. Resource constraints as a barrier to lung cancer management: Developing nations. Health. 2014;6:845–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Lim, CS, Lee, YG, Koh, Y, Heo, DS. International comparison of the factors influencing reimbursement of targeted anti-cancer drugs. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Expensive drugs to be covered by health insurance . 2014. http://english.mw.go.kr/front_eng/al/sal0201vw.jsp?PAR_MENU_ID=1002&MENU_ID=100203&page=2&CONT_SEQ=299419 (accessed June 10, 2015).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Thongprasert supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Thongprasert supplementary material(File)
File 323.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Thongprasert supplementary material

Table S1

Download Thongprasert supplementary material(File)
File 64.2 KB