Willingness to Pay and QALYs: What Can We Learn about Valuing Foodborne Risk?

Andersson, Henrik; Hammitt, James K.; Sundström, Kristian

doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12109

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Health-related benefits are generally more difficult to value than costs, so policymakers to date have largely relied on cost-effectiveness analysis to guide health policies [ 31 ]. Health effects are often quantified using QALY and interventions are evaluated by the cost per expected QALY gained, which is sometimes referred to as cost utility analysis [ 32 ].…”

Section: Impact Measurements Of Foodborne Diseasementioning

confidence: 99%

Food safety challenges and One Health within Europe

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review discusses food safety aspects of importance from a One Health perspective, focusing on Europe. Using examples of food pathogen/food commodity combinations, spread of antimicrobial resistance in the food web and the risk of transmission of zoonotic pathogens in a circular system, it demonstrates how different perspectives are interconnected. The chosen examples all show the complexity of the food system and the necessity of using a One Health approach. Food safety resources should be allocated where they contribute most One Health benefits. Data on occurrence and disease burden and knowledge of source attribution are crucial in assessing costs and benefits of control measures. Future achievements in food safety, public health and welfare will largely be based on how well politicians, researchers, industry, national agencies and other stakeholders manage to collaborate using the One Health approach. It can be concluded that closer cooperation between different disciplines is necessary to avoid silo thinking when addressing important food safety challenges. The importance of this is often mentioned, but more proof of concept is needed by the research community.

show abstract

Section: Impact Measurements Of Foodborne Diseasementioning

confidence: 99%

Food safety challenges and One Health within Europe

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The value of a QALY (VoQ) was early described for foodborne illness by Mauskopf and French (1991); the health benefits in terms of increased QALYs were multiplied by a unit value for one QALY. Two main approaches to estimate the value of a QALY are to either elicit the WTP directly or to estimate the WTP based on value of a statistical life (Andersson et al 2015). A recent review of literature estimating the WTP for a QALY reported a wide spectrum of QALY valuations ranging from < €10,00 to €4,800,000 (SEK 10,176-48,844,800, year 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Valuation for Cost–Benefit Analysis of Health Risk Reduction in Drinking Water Systems

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microbial risk mitigation measures in drinking water systems aiming at preventing gastrointestinal disease can provide substantial societal health benefits if implemented properly. However, the procedure of including and monetising the health benefits in cost-benefit analysis (CBA) has been somewhat scattered and inconsistent in the literature, and there is a need for a comparison of available methods. First, through a literature review, we identified the methods to include health benefits in decision support and to monetise these benefits in CBA. Second, we applied the identified health valuation methods in a case study. In the case study, we investigated if changing the health valuation method could change the rank order of the decision alternatives' net present values. In the case study a risk-based decision model that combined quantitative microbial risk assessment and CBA was used. Seven health valuation methods were identified, each of them including different aspects of health benefits. The results of the case study showed that the choice of the health valuation method can change the rank order of decision alternatives with respect to their net present values. These results highlight the importance of choosing an appropriate health valuation method for the specific application. Although this study focused on the drinking water context, the identified health valuation methods can be applied in any decision support context, provided that input in terms of the health risk reduction is available.

show abstract

“…To empirically estimate the VSL, respondents could either be presented with q and p separately or combined, that is, in terms of the unconditional risk m. Processing q and p separately for four different health outcomes can be expected to be challenging, and previous research has shown that respondents experience difficulties with understanding conditional probabilities (Andersson, Hammitt, & Sundström, 2015). Presenting q and p combined-in terms of m-would on the other hand be perceived as unrealistic since preventive measures aimed at ALS, cancer, and sudden cardiac arrest would not realistically differentiate between fatal and nonfatal events.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dread and Risk Elimination Premium for the Value of a Statistical Life

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The value of a statistical life (VSL) is a widely used measure for the value of mortality risk reduction. As VSL should reflect preferences and attitudes to risk, there are reasons to believe that it varies depending on the type of risk involved. It has been argued that cancer should be considered a “dread disease,” which supports the use of a “cancer premium.” The objective of this study is to investigate the existence of a cancer premium (for pancreatic cancer and multiple myeloma) in relation to road traffic accidents, sudden cardiac arrest, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Data were collected from 500 individuals in the Swedish general population of 50–74‐year olds using a web‐based questionnaire. Preferences were elicited using the contingent valuation method, and a split‐sample design was applied to test scale sensitivity. VSL differs significantly between contexts, being highest for ALS and lowest for road traffic accidents. A premium (92–113%) for cancer was found in relation to road traffic accidents. The premium was higher for cancer with a shorter time from diagnosis to death. A premium was also found for sudden cardiac arrest (73%) and ALS (118%) in relation to road traffic accidents. Eliminating risk was associated with a premium of around 20%. This study provides additional evidence that there exist a dread premium and risk elimination premium. These factors should be considered when searching for an appropriate value for economic evaluation and health technology assessment.

show abstract

Willingness to Pay and QALYs: What Can We Learn about Valuing Foodborne Risk?

Cited by 20 publications

References 49 publications

Food safety challenges and One Health within Europe

Food safety challenges and One Health within Europe

Economic Valuation for Cost–Benefit Analysis of Health Risk Reduction in Drinking Water Systems

Dread and Risk Elimination Premium for the Value of a Statistical Life

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About