Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

To test or not to test: what is the value of knowing?

John Rizzo, David Lee

Abstract


This paper develops a conceptual model for understanding the impact of the “value of knowing”, defined as the value of information from medical tests exclusive of treatment or life-planning decisions on a patient’s decision to undergo testing.  

We draw upon the behavioral economic, loss-aversion, cost-benefit and willingness-to-pay literatures to develop a mathematical model of how a medical diagnostic test affects patients’ sense of wellbeing and how this phenomenon affects their decision to undergo testing.  The model allows simultaneous evaluation of the impact of baseline (pre-test) disease risk, test inaccuracy, prior information, worrying over disease onset, time preference and the degree of loss aversion on patients’ net assessment of the value of knowing.  We then simulate the net value of knowing under alternative hypothetical scenarios about test accuracy and patient characteristics.             

Patients agree to testing when the expected benefits from good news (measured by willingness to pay) exceed the psychic costs of bad news (measured by willingness to accept).  The value of knowing from testing is shown to depend on test accuracy, pre-test disease risk, the patient’s discount rate, time to disease onset and the patient’s aversion to receiving bad news (loss).  Simulation results indicate that the value of knowing increases (and testing becomes more likely) when: tests are more accurate; the baseline expectation of a positive test is low and the adverse consequences of a positive test are either small or occur far in the future or patients do not worry about onset of future disease.

Keywords


Anxiety, aversion, cost-benefit, diagnostic testing, disease screening, genetic counseling, knowing, negative result, patient characteristics, patient education, person-centered medicine, positive result, probability, psychic costs, re-test, test

Full Text:

PDF

References


Gottlieb, S. & Woodcock, J. (2006). A regulatory perspective on in vitro diagnostics. Nature Biotechnology 24, 927-929.

Pinsky, L. (2007). Overview of genetic assessment. Uptodate: for Patients. Accessed on May 1, 2008 at: http://www.uptodate.com/patients/content/topic.do?topicKey=genr_med/27636.

Medpac. (2006). A Data Book: Healthcare spending and the Medicare program. Accessed on May 18, 2008 at http://www.medpac.gov/publications/congressional_reports/Jun06DataBook_Entire_report.pdf.

Gazelle, G.S., Halpern, E.F., Ryan, H.S. & Tramontano, A.C. (2007). Utilization of diagnostic medical imaging: Comparison of radiologist referral versus same-specialty referral. Radiology 245, 517-522.

Rothenberg, B.M. & Korn, A. (2005). The opportunities and challenges posed by the rapid growth of diagnostic imaging. Journal of the American College of Radiology 2, 407-410.

Merz, J.F., Kriss, A.G., Leonard, D.G. & Cho, M.K. (2002). Diagnostic testing fails the test: commentary. Nature 415, 577-579.

Kuhn, H. (2006). Payment for imaging services under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Testimony before The House Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 18, 2006.

Asch, D.A., Patton, J.P. & Hershey, J.C. (1990). Knowing for the sake of knowing: the value of prognostic information. Medical Decision Making 10, 47-57.

Deibel, T.L., Sommers, B.D., Gilmore, R., Sagalowsky, A. & Shore, N. (2007). Talking to patients about risk. Urologic Oncology 25, 348-350.

Rasiel, E.B., Weinfurt, K.P. & Schulman, K.A. (2005). Can prospect theory explain risk-seeking behavior by terminally ill patients? Medical Decision Making 25, 609-613.

Winter, L. & Parker, B. (2007). Current health and preferences for life-prolonging treatments: an application of prospect theory to end-of-life decision making. Social Science & Medicine 65, 1695-1707.

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263-291.

Horowitz, J.K. & McConnell, K.E. (2002). A review of WTA/WTP studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44, 426-447.

Horowitz, J.K. & McConnell, K.E. (2003). Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 51 (4) 537-545.

Brown, T.C. (2005). Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA-WTP disparity. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 57, 367-379.

O'Brien, B.J., Gertsen, K., Willan, A.R. & Faulkner, L.A. (2002). Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost-effectiveness in health care? Health Economics 11, 175-180.

Carthy, T., Chilton, S., Covery, J., Hopkins, L., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Pidgeon, N. & Spencer, A. (1998). 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.

Gerking, S., DeHaan, M. & Schulze, W.D. (1988). The marginal value of job safety: A contingent value study. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 185-199.

McDaniels, T. (1992). Reference points, loss aversion, and contingent values for auto safety. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 187-200.

DuBourg, W.P., Jones-Lee, M.W. & Loomes, G. (1994). Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 115-133.

Whynes, D.K. & Sach, T.H. (2007). WTP and WTA: do people think differently? Social Science & Medicine 65, 946-957.

Seror. V. (2008). Fitting observed and theoretical choices - women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. Health Economics 17, 557-577.

Neumann, P.J., Hammitt, J.K., Mueller, C., Fillit, H.M., Hill, J., Tetteh, N.A. & Kosik, K.S. (2001). Public attitudes about genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease. Health Affairs 20, 252-264.

Phillips, K.A., Van, B.S., Marshall, D., Walsh, J. & Thabane, L. (2006). A review of studies examining stated preferences for cancer screening. Preventing Chronic Disease 3, A75.

Ryan, M., Diack, J., Watson, V. & Smith, N. (2005). Rapid prenatal diagnostic testing for Down syndrome only or longer wait for full karyotype: the views of pregnant women. Prenatal Diagnosis 25, 1206-1211.

Yasunaga, H. (2008). Willingness to pay for mass screening for prostate cancer: a contingent valuation survey. International Journal of Urology 15, 102-105.

Yasunaga, H., Ide, H., Imamura, T. & Ohe, K. (2006). The measurement of willingness to pay for mass cancer screening with whole-body PET (positron emission tomography). Annals of Nuclear Medicine 20, 457-462.

Mushlin, A.I., Kern, L.M., Paris, M., Lambert, D.R. & Williams, G. (2005). The value of diagnostic information to patients with chest pain suggestive of coronary artery disease. Medical Decision Making 25, 149-157.

Caughey, A.B., Washington, A.E., Gildengorin, V. & Kuppermann, M. (2004). Assessment of demand for prenatal diagnostic testing using willingness to pay. Obstetrics & Gynecology 103, 539-545.

Hirth, R.A., Bloom, B.S., Chernew, M.E. & Fendrick, A.M. (1999). Willingness to pay for diagnostic certainty: comparing patients, physicians, and managed care executives. Journal of General Internal Medicine 14, 193-195.

Hirth, R.A., Bloom, B.S., Chernew, M.E. & Fendrick, A.M. (2000). Patient, physician and payer perceptions and misperceptions of willingness to pay for diagnostic certainty. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 16, 35-49.

Raab, S.S., Grzybicki, D.M., Hart, A.R., Kiely, S., Andrew-JaJa, C. & Scioscia, E. Jr. (2002). Willingness to pay for new Papanicolaou test technologies. American Journal of Clinical Pathology 117, 524-533.

Wordsworth, S., Ryan, M. & Waugh, N. (2001). Costs and benefits of cervical screening IV: valuation by women of the cervical screening programme. Cytopathology 12, 367-376.

Papatheofanis, F.J. (2000). The willingness to pay for positron emission tomography (PET): evaluation of suspected lung cancer using contingent valuation. Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging 44, 191-196.

Herbild, L., Gyrd-Hansen, D. & Bech, M. (2008). Patient preferences for pharmacogenetic screening in depression. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 24, 96-103.

Kubler-Ross, E. (1991). On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan, 1969 Lawrance, E.C. Poverty and the rate of time preference: Evidence from panel data. Journal of Political Economy 99, 54-77.

Gray, C., Koopman, E. & Hunt, J. (1991). The emotional phases of marital separation: an empirical investigation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 61, 138-143.

van der Pol, M. & Cairns, J. (2001). Estimating time preference of health using discrete choice experiments. Social Science & Medicine 52, 1459-1470.

Farley, P. (1986). Theories of the price and quantity of physician services: A synthesis and critique. Journal of Health Economics 5, 315-333.

Jarvik, J.G. & Deyo, R.A. (2002). Diagnostic evaluation of low-back pain with emphasis on imaging. Annals of Internal Medicine 137, 586-597.

Ravdin, P.M., Cronin, K.A., Howlader, N., Berg, C.D., Chlebowski, R.T., Feuer, E.J., Edwards, B.K. & Berry, D.A. (2007). The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 356, 1670-1674.

Breen, N., Cronin, A., Meissner, H.I., Taplin, S.H., Tangka, F.K., Tiro, J.A. & McNeel, T.S. (2007). Reported drop in mammography: Is this cause for concern? Cancer 109, 2405-2409.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124-1131.

Centers for Disease Control. Colorectal cancer screening rates. Accessed on May 20, 2008 at: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/screening_rates.htm.

Lawrance, E.C. (1991). Poverty and the Rate of Time Preference: Evidence from Panel Data. Journal of Political Economy 99, 54-77.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v2i1.692

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.