Assessing Whether There Is a Cancer Premium for the Value of a Statistical Life

Viscusi, W. Kip; Huber, Joel; Bell, Jason

doi:10.1002/hec.2919

Cited by 52 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In UK, the cancer premium of 100% is recommended [29] and in the US, it is 50% for their policy assessments [30]. Magat et al [31] found a 58% premium for curable lymph cancer against automobile accident deaths at the mean values, Viscusi et al [32] estimated the cancer premium for fatal bladder cancer from drinking arsenic contaminated water and found a 21% premium compared to the US estimates for acute accidents using a large US sample, and Van Houtven et al [33] found a 200% premium for cancer ($19 million) against immediate fatal accidents ($6 million) when the latency period was 5 years in the US. Hammitt and Liu [34] found a 30% premium for lung or liver cancer compared to the non-cancer lung or liver diseases in Taiwan, while Hammitt and Haninger [35] found no premium in the US.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Value of Mortality Risk Reductions in Turkey

Tekeşin

Ara

2014

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The willingness to pay (WTP) for mortality risk reduction from four causes (lung cancer, other type of cancer, respiratory disease, traffic accident) are estimated using random parameter logit model with data from choice experiment for three regions in Turkey. The value of statistical life (VSL) estimated for Afsin-Elbistan, Kutahya-Tavsanli, Ankara and the pooled case are found as 0.56, 0.35, 0.46 and 0.49 million Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) adjusted 2012 US dollars (USD). Different types of risk cause different VSL estimates and we found the lung cancer premium of 213% against traffic accident. The effects of one-year-delayed provision of risk-reduction service are the reduction of WTP by 482 TL ($318 in PPP adjusted USD) per person on average, and the disutility from status-quo (zero risk reduction) against alternative is found to be 891 TL ($589 in PPP adjusted USD) per person on average. Senior discounts of VSL are partially determined by status-quo preference and the amount of discount decreases once the status-quo bias is removed. The peak VSL is found to be for the age group 30–39 and the average VSL for the age group is 0.8 million PPP adjusted USD). Turkey’s compliance to European Union (EU) air quality standard will cause welfare gains of total 373 million PPP adjusted USD for our study areas in terms of reduced number of premature mortality.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Value of Mortality Risk Reductions in Turkey

Tekeşin

Ara

2014

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…VSL estimates for cancer are particularly divergent, with debates around the existence and magnitude of a ‘cancer premium’ that inflates the VSL for a cancer death in comparison to a death from an acute fatality to incorporate the latency and morbidity period of cancer. For instance, Viscusi et al [45] suggested the use of 1.21 for cancer premium, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the European Commission and several studies recommend a cancer premium of 1.5 [46, 64, 65], and the UK’s Health and Safety Executive doubles the VSL (or the value of preventing a statistical fatality) estimates of accidental death to derive a VSL estimate for cancer [13]. We understand that there are concerns about transferring VSL between countries with different healthcare systems, income levels and cultural values that may affect mortality risk valuation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For VSL-RP, we selected (1) a VSL estimate currently in use by the US Department of Transportation (‘USDoT’) [47], which is very similar to that adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services [14] and the US Environmental Protection Agency [15], as well as the estimated means from a meta-regression analysis, which adjusted for publication bias [48], and (2) a range of VSL for cancer risk reduction estimated based on hedonic housing prices in the US (‘Gayer 1–2’) [49]. For VSL-SP, we selected VSL estimates from (1) a WTP study conducted among cervical cancer patients in Taiwan (‘Lang’) [50], (2) a recent systematic review of VSL focusing on a ‘cancer premium’ (‘Viscusi’) [45], (3) recommendation of the UK Health and Safety Executive (‘UKHSE’) [13], and (4) OECD guidelines for EU-27 countries (‘OECD’) [44]. All VSL estimates were converted to the current UK currency based on the OECD guideline [44].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-benefit analysis of vaccination: a comparative analysis of eight approaches for valuing changes to mortality and morbidity risks

Park

Jit

2018

BMC Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is increasing interest in estimating the broader benefits of public health interventions beyond those captured in traditional cost-utility analyses. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in principle offers a way to capture such benefits, but a wide variety of methods have been used to monetise benefits in CBAs.MethodsTo understand the implications of different CBA approaches for capturing and monetising benefits and their potential impact on public health decision-making, we conducted a CBA of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in the United Kingdom using eight methods for monetising health and economic benefits, valuing productivity loss using either (1) the human capital or (2) the friction cost method, including the value of unpaid work in (3) human capital or (4) friction cost approaches, (5) adjusting for hard-to-fill vacancies in the labour market, (6) using the value of a statistical life, (7) monetising quality-adjusted life years and (8) including both productivity losses and monetised quality-adjusted life years. A previously described transmission dynamic model was used to project the impact of vaccination on cervical cancer outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to capture uncertainty in epidemiologic and economic parameters.ResultsTotal benefits of vaccination varied by more than 20-fold (£0.6–12.4 billion) across the approaches. The threshold vaccine cost (maximum vaccine cost at which HPV vaccination has a benefit-to-cost ratio above one) ranged from £69 (95% CI £56–£84) to £1417 (£1291–£1541).ConclusionsApplying different approaches to monetise benefits in CBA can lead to widely varying outcomes on public health interventions such as vaccination. Use of CBA to inform priority setting in public health will require greater convergence around appropriate methodology to achieve consistency and comparability across different studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1130-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Twelve of the studies [17, 28–38] estimated the value of a statistical life (VSL) for cancers by measuring WTP for reductions in cancer risk in comparison with other conditions. Scenarios typically included reduction or avoidance of environmental pollution [17, 28, 29, 31–33, 38] and comparisons with road traffic accidents [29, 34–37].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scenarios typically included reduction or avoidance of environmental pollution [17, 28, 29, 31–33, 38] and comparisons with road traffic accidents [29, 34–37]. These studies are part of a body of risk literature estimating the VSL premium for cancer, reviewed by Tekesin and Ara [36], which finds cancer premiums ranging from 0 to 200%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPolicies such as the Cancer Drugs Fund in England assumed a societal preference to fund cancer care relative to other conditions, even if that resulted in lower health gain for the population overall.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the evidence for such a preference among the UK public.MethodsThe MEDLINE, PubMed and Econlit electronic databases were searched for studies relating to preferences for prioritising cancer treatment, as well as studies relating to preferences for the characteristics of cancer (severity of disease, end-of-life). The searches were run in November 2015 and updated in March 2017. Empirical preference studies, studies of public views, and studies in English were included.ResultsWe identified 24 studies relating to cancer preferences. Two directly addressed health trade-offs in the UK—one showed a preference for health gain in cancer, while the other found no such preference but provided results consistent with population health maximisation. Other studies mostly showed support for cancer but did not require a direct health trade-off. Severity and end-of-life searches identified 12 and 6 papers, respectively, which were additional to existing reviews. There is consistent evidence that people give priority to severe illness, while results for end-of-life are mixed.ConclusionWe did not find consistent support for a preference for health gains to cancer patients in the context of health maximisation. The evidence base is small and the results are highly sensitive to study design. There remains a contradiction between these findings and the popular view of cancer, and further work is required to determine the features of cancer which contribute to that view.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0511-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Assessing Whether There Is a Cancer Premium for the Value of a Statistical Life

Cited by 52 publications

References 22 publications

Measuring the Value of Mortality Risk Reductions in Turkey

Measuring the Value of Mortality Risk Reductions in Turkey

Cost-benefit analysis of vaccination: a comparative analysis of eight approaches for valuing changes to mortality and morbidity risks

Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About