1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Establishing cost-effectiveness threshold in China: a community survey of willingness to pay for a healthy life year

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained (WTP/Q) is commonly used to determine whether an intervention is cost-effective in health technology assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the WTP/Q for different disease scenarios in a Chinese population.

          Methods

          The study employed a quadruple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation method to estimate the WTP/Q in the general public. The estimation was conducted across chronic, terminal and rare disease scenarios. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in a Chinese general population recruited from Jiangsu province using a convenience sampling method. Interval regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship between respondents’ demographic and socioeconomic conditions and WTP/Q. Sensitivity analyses of removing protest responses and open question analyses were conducted.

          Results

          A total of 896 individuals participated in the study. The WTP/Q thresholds were 128 000 Chinese renminbi (RMB) ($36 364) for chronic diseases, 149 500 RMB ($42 472) for rare diseases and 140 800 RMB ($40 000) for terminal diseases, equivalent to 1.76, 2.06 and 1.94 times the gross domestic product per capita in China, respectively. The starting bid value had a positive influence on participants’ WTP/Q. Additionally, residing in an urban area (p<0.01), and higher household expenditure (p<0.01), educational attainment (p<0.02) and quality of life (p<0.02) were significantly associated with higher WTP/Q. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results.

          Conclusion

          This study implies that tailored or varied rather than a single cost-effectiveness threshold could better reflect community preferences for the value of a healthy year. Our estimates hold significance in informing reimbursement decision-making in health technology assessment in China.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Doing It Now or Later

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            10 years of health-care reform in China: progress and gaps in Universal Health Coverage

            In 2009, China launched a major health-care reform and pledged to provide all citizens with equal access to basic health care with reasonable quality and financial risk protection. The government has since quadrupled its funding for health. The reform's first phase (2009-11) emphasised expanding social health insurance coverage for all and strengthening infrastructure. The second phase (2012 onwards) prioritised reforming its health-care delivery system through: (1) systemic reform of public hospitals by removing mark-up for drug sales, adjusting fee schedules, and reforming provider payment and governance structures; and (2) overhaul of its hospital-centric and treatment-based delivery system. In the past 10 years, China has made substantial progress in improving equal access to care and enhancing financial protection, especially for people of a lower socioeconomic status. However, gaps remain in quality of care, control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), efficiency in delivery, control of health expenditures, and public satisfaction. To meet the needs of China's ageing population that is facing an increased NCD burden, we recommend leveraging strategic purchasing, information technology, and local pilots to build a primary health-care (PHC)-based integrated delivery system by aligning the incentives and governance of hospitals and PHC systems, improving the quality of PHC providers, and educating the public on the value of prevention and health maintenance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Country-Level Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Initial Estimates and the Need for Further Research

              Background Cost-effectiveness analysis can guide policymakers in resource allocation decisions. It assesses whether the health gains offered by an intervention are large enough relative to any additional costs to warrant adoption. When there are constraints on the health care system’s budget or ability to increase expenditures, additional costs imposed by interventions have an “opportunity cost” in terms of the health foregone because other interventions cannot be provided. Cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) are typically used to assess whether an intervention is worthwhile and should reflect health opportunity cost. Nevertheless, CETs used by some decision makers—such as the World Health Organization that suggested CETs of 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita—do not. Objectives To estimate CETs based on opportunity cost for a wide range of countries. Methods We estimated CETs based on recent empirical estimates of opportunity cost (from the English National Health Service), estimates of the relationship between country GDP per capita and the value of a statistical life, and a series of explicit assumptions. Results CETs for Malawi (the country with the lowest income in the world), Cambodia (with borderline low/low-middle income), El Salvador (with borderline low-middle/upper-middle income), and Kazakhstan (with borderline high-middle/high income) were estimated to be $3 to $116 (1%–51% GDP per capita), $44 to $518 (4%–51%), $422 to $1967 (11%–51%), and $4485 to $8018 (32%–59%), respectively. Conclusions To date, opportunity-cost-based CETs for low-/middle-income countries have not been available. Although uncertainty exists in the underlying assumptions, these estimates can provide a useful input to inform resource allocation decisions and suggest that routinely used CETs have been too high.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                2024
                9 January 2024
                : 9
                : 1
                : e013070
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [2 ]Ringgold_12461Nanjing Medical University , Nanjing, China
                [3 ]Ringgold_626351Sun Yat-Sen University School of Public Health Shenzhen , Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
                [4 ]departmentMenzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics , Ringgold_522555The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [5 ]departmentSchool of Public Health , Ringgold_522555The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health , Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [6 ]departmentSchool of Health Sciences , Ringgold_6489Western Sydney University , Penrith South, New South Wales, Australia
                [7 ]departmentTranslational Health Research Institute , Ringgold_6489Western Sydney University , Penrith South, New South Wales, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Mingsheng Chen; cms@ 123456njmu.edu.cn
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2881-0473
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9741-0986
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7188-7740
                Article
                bmjgh-2023-013070
                10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013070
                10806867
                38195152
                6fc91e4b-4a8e-4fa6-89b9-799efcd9d9a9
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 07 June 2023
                : 06 December 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100001547, China Medical Board;
                Award ID: 19-346
                Funded by: Western Sydney University Research Theme Grant;
                Funded by: Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship;
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                health economics,health systems,health services research,cross-sectional survey

                Comments

                Comment on this article