Abstract

Objectives

Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly used to inform subvention decisions for moderately life extending treatments but apply several simplifying assumptions that may be inconsistent with public preferences. Contrary to standard assumptions, we hypothesize that societal willingness to allocate public funding toward these treatments is (1) diminishing for incremental improvements in survival and quality of life (QoL) and (2) greater for subvention policies that exclude the oldest old (>80 years).

Methods

We tested these hypotheses using a web-based discrete choice experiment (n = 425) in Singapore. In each of 5 questions, respondents were shown 2 hypothetical treatments targeting patients with an expected prognosis of 2 months at very poor QoL and asked which treatment they wanted the government to subsidize, if any. Treatments were defined by 4 attributes: cost to the government, age of beneficiaries, expected gain in survival (2-12 months), and QoL (poor, fair, and good).

Results

Latent class models were used to analyze results. Results revealed 2 classes. In the majority class (69.7% of sample), respondents value incremental gains in survival and QoL at a diminishing rate. Their willingness to allocate public funding estimates (Singapore dollars 16 825-91 027 per patient per month) were much higher than traditional cost-effectiveness thresholds. In the second class, respondents were unwilling to subsidize treatments offering less than 2 months of life extension or poor QoL. Neither class preferred subvention policies that exclude the oldest old.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that the Singapore government should consider cost-effectiveness thresholds that rise with increases in life extension. Age-based restrictions should not be imposed.