Abstract
Objective
Recently, we have seen an increase in the number of studies that measured the willingness to pay (WTP) for medical services using the contingent valuation method (CVM) and evaluated the benefits of these services. This study aimed to measure the general public’s WTP for cancer screening with positron emission tomography (PET) and to determine consumer characteristics that may affect their WTP.
Methods
A questionnaire survey of males and females living in Japan aged between 40 and 59 years was conducted via the Internet. A total of 274 individuals accepted the offer to participate and were enrolled in the study. The study participants were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 138) and Group B (n = 136). Group A was provided only with information about the PET procedure and the high cancer detection rate; Group B was provided with additional information regarding the possibility of ‘false negative’ and ‘false positive’ results and the fact that the efficacy of PET screening for reducing mortality has not yet been demonstrated. Participants were then asked to answer their WTP for cancer screening with PET by payment cards approach.
Results
The overall average amount consumers were willing to pay for PET cancer screening was $103.7 (n = 274). The average value in Group A was $107.3, the average value in Group B was $100.0 and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. The results of categorical regression analysis showed that household annual income was the only significant factor affecting WTP.
Conclusions
Our study showed that household annual income affected the WTP for cancer screening with PET and therefore the demand for PET screening would be limited to the high-income group. Negative information about PET did not reduce the WTP. This finding suggests that test subjects mainly evaluated the high detection rate of PET screening and the ‘reassurance’ value of receiving negative screening results.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Yasuda S, Ide M, Fujii H, Nakahara T, Mochizuki Y, Takahashi W, et al. Application of positron emission tomography imaging to cancer screening.Br J Cancer 2000; 83: 1607–1611.
Ide M, Suzuki Y. Is whole-body FDG-PET valuable for health screening? For.Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 2005; 32:339- 341.
Chen YK, Ding HJ, Su CT, Shen YY, Chen LK, Liao AC, et al. Application of PET and PET/CT imaging for cancer screening.Anticancer Res 2004; 24: 4103–4108.
Weckesser M, Schober O. Is whole-body FDG-PET valuable for health screening? Against.Eur J Nucl Med Mol I 2005; 32: 342–343.
Smith RD. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment.Health Econ 2003; 12: 609–628.
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: 1402–1417.
Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review of the literature.Health Econ 1998; 7: 313–326.
Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care.Health Econ 2001; 10: 39–52.
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 1996; 16: 288- 299.
Klose T. The contingent evaluation method in health care.Health Policy 1999; 47: 97–123.
Papatheofanis FJ. The willingness to pay for positron emission tomography (PET): evaluation of suspected lung cancer using contingent valuation.Q J Nucl Med 2000; 44: 191–196.
Drummond MF, Stoddard GL. Economic evaluation of health-producing technologies across different sectors: Can valid methods be developed?Health Policy 1995; 33: 219- 231.
Drumond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW.Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd ed. New York; Oxford University Press, 1997: 226.
Berwick DM, Weinstein MC. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy.Med Care 1985; 23: 881–893.
Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M, Miedzybrodzka Z. Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis.Health Econ 1995; 4: 439–452.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yasunaga, H., Ide, H., Imamura, T. et al. The measurement of willingness to pay for mass cancer screening with whole-body PET (positron emission tomography). Ann Nucl Med 20, 457–462 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02987254
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02987254