The Intrinsic Value of the Information Contained in Medicine Leaflets

  1. José María Abellán Perpiñán 1
  2. Jorge Eduardo Martínez Pérez 1
  3. Fernando Ignacio Sánchez Martínez 1
  4. Jorge Luis Gómez Torres 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info
    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

    Geographic location of the organization Universidad de Murcia
Journal:
Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics

ISSN: 0210-1173

Year of publication: 2024

Issue Title: Health economics

Issue: 249

Pages: 83-107

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics

Abstract

This paper applies contingent valuation methodology to estimate the monetary value of the information contained in medicine leaflets. By surveying a sample of the general population, we obtain willingness-to-pay estimates of the value of providing additional quantitative information on potential benefits and side effects of a hypothetical medicine, according to the best evidence available about risk communication. The willingness-to-pay estimates found in our study ranged from 60 cents to 1 euro per month. In addition, some consistency tests of the robustness of our estimates are also presented, as well as evidence on their feasibility, reliability and validity.

Bibliographic References

  • Bateman, I., Cameron, M. P. and Tsoumas, A. (2006), “Investigating the characteristics of stated preferences for reducing the impacts of air pollution: a contingent valuation experiment”, Working Papers in Economics, 06/08, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
  • Bateman, I., Day, B., Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (2007), “Can ranking techniques elicit robust values?”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 34: 49-66.
  • Bateman, I. J., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M. and Loomes, G. (2002), Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual, Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
  • Bateman, I. J., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1997), “Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation”, Economic Journal, 107: 322-332.
  • Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N. and Shleifer, A. (2013), “Salience and Consumer Choice”, Journal of Political Economy, 121: 803-843
  • Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N. and Shleifer, A. (2016), “Competition for Attention”, The Review of Economic Studies, 83: 481-513.
  • Butler, D. J. and Loomes, G. C. (2007), “Imprecision as an account of the preference reversal phenomenon”, American Economic Review, 97(1): 277-297.
  • Carson, R. T. and Mitchell, R. C. (1995), “Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28: 155-173.
  • Carson, R. T. (1997), “Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope”, in Kopp, R. J., Pommerhene, W. and Schwartz, N. (eds,), Determining the Value of Non-marketed Goods, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 127-163.
  • Carthy, T., Chilton, S., Covey, J., Hopkins, L., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Pidgeon, N. and Spencer, A. (1999), “On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: Part 2-The CV/ SG ‘Chained’ approach”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17(3): 187-213.
  • Clark, J. and Friesen, L. (2008), “The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 56: 195-206.
  • Cokely E. T., Ghazal S. and García-Retamero R. (2014), “Measuring numeracy” in Anderson, B. L. and Schulkin, J. (eds.), Numerical reasoning in judgments and decision making about health, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S. and García-Retamero, R. (2012), “Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin numeracy test”, Judgment and Decision Making, 7(1): 25-47.
  • Dealy, B. C., Horn, B. P., Bohara, A. K., Berrens, R. P. and Bryan, A. D. (2017), “The Impact of Behavioural Risk-reduction Interventions on Willingness to Pay to Avoid Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Stated Preference Study of Justice-involved Youth”, Applied Economics, 49(56): 5673-5685.
  • Dealy, B. D., Kearsley, A., Wolff, C., Botkins, E., Lew, N. and Nardinelli, C. (2021), “Willingness to pay to standardize patient medication information”, Applied Economics, 53(9): 1112-1126.
  • Donaldson, C. and Shackley, P. (1997), “Does “process utility ”exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy”, Social Science & Medicine, 44: 699-707.
  • DuBourg, W. R., Jones-Lee, M. W. and Loomes, G. (1994), “Imprecise Preferences and the WTP-WTA Disparity”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9: 115-133.
  • Dubourg, W. R., Jones-Lee, M. W. and Loomes, G. (1997), “Imprecise preferences and survey design in contingent valuation”, Economica, 64: 681-702.
  • Educainee (2013), “Programa Internacional para la Evaluación de las Competencias de la población adulta (PIAAC) I”, Boletín de Educación INEE, N.º 15, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 8 Octubre 2013.
  • García-Retamero, R. and Galesic, M. (2011), “Using plausible group sizes to communicate information about medical risks”, Patient education and counseling, 84(2): 245-250.
  • García-Retamero, R., Sobkow, A., Petrova, D., Garrido, D. and Traczyk, J. (2019), ”Numeracy and Risk Literacy: What Have We Learned so Far?”, The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 22, e10: 1-11.
  • Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M. and Woloshin, S. (2007), “Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics”, Psychological science in the public interest, 8(2): 53-96.
  • Haab, T. C., Interis, M. G., Petrolia, D. R. and Whitehead, J. C. (2013), “From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “Dubious to Hopeless” Critique of Contingent Valuation”, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35(4): 593-612.
  • Hamrosi, K., Dickinson, R., Knapp, P., Raynor, D., Krass, I., Sowter, J. and Aslani, R. (2013), “It’s for your benefit: exploring patients’ opinions about the inclusion of textual and numerical benefit information in medicine leaflets”, International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 21: 216-225.
  • Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J. L. (1992), “Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2(1): 57-70.
  • Kling, C. L., Phaneuf, D. J. and Zhao, J. (2012), “From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4): 3-26.
  • Latvala, T. and Kola, J. (2000), “Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Information about Food Safety and Quality: Case Beef”, Contributed paper at the International Food and Agribusiness Management Association IAMA 10 th World Congress and Forum, Chicago, USA, (http://agecon.tamu.edu/iama/ 2000Congress/2000_forum_papers.htm).
  • MacCrimmon, K. and Smith, M. (1986), “Imprecise equivalences: Preference reversals in money and probability”. Working paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  • Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, New York, NY: Resources for the Future.
  • Pinto, J. L., Sánchez, F. I. and Rovira, J. (1998), “Medición de los beneficios intangibles de un tratamiento médico a través de la valoración contingente”, Hacienda Pública Española/Review of Public Economics, 147: 51-62.
  • Pinto-Prades, J. L., Martínez-Pérez, J. E. and Abellán-Perpiñán, J. M. (2006), “The influence of the ratio bias phenomenon on the elicitation of health states utilities”, Judgment and Decision Making, 1(2): 118-133.
  • Poe, G. L. (2016), “Behavioral Anomalies in Contingent Values and Actual Choices”, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 45(2): 246-269.
  • Protiere, C., Donaldson, C., Luchini, S., Moatti, J. P. and Shackley, P. (2004), “The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programs”, Social Science & Medicine, 58: 1257-1269.
  • Sánchez-Martínez, F. I., Martínez-Pérez, J. E., Abellán-Perpiñán, J. M. and Pinto-Prades, J. L. (2021), “The value of statistical life in the context of road safety: new evidence on the contingent valuation/ standard gamble chained approach”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 63(2): 203-228.
  • Shono, A., Kondo, M., Ohmae, H. and Okubo, I. (2014), “Willingness to Pay for Public Health Services in Rural Central Java, Indonesia: Methodological Considerations When Using the Contingent Valuation Method”, Social Science & Medicine, 110: 31-40.
  • Sirota, M. and Juanchich, M. (2019), “Ratio format shapes health decisions: the pratical significance of the 1 in X effect”, Medical Decision Making, 32(2): 179-193.
  • Sirota, M., Juanchich, M., Petrova, D., García-Retamero, R., Walasek, L. and Bhatia, S. (2018), “Health Professionals Prefer to Communicate Risk-Related Numerical Information using ‘1-in-X’ Ratios”, Medical Decision Making, 38(3): 1-11.
  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases”, Science, 185: 1124-1130.
  • Tversky, A., Sattath, S. and Slovic, P. (1988), “Contingent weighting in judgment and choice”, Psychological Review, 95(3): 371-384.
  • Webster, R., Weinman, J. and Rubin, G. (2018), “Positively Framed Risk Information in Patient Information Leaflets Reduces Side Effect Reporting: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial”, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 52: 920-929.
  • Yamagishi, K. (1997), “When a 12,86% mortality is more dangerous than 24,14%: implications for risk communication”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11: 495-506.
  • Yi, Y., Stvilia, B. and Mon, L. (2012), “Cultural influences on seeking quality health information: An exploratory study of the korean community”, Libray and Information Science Research, 34(1): 45-51.
Data source: Dialnet