What Features of Fertility Treatment do Patients Value? Price Elasticity and Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Abstract

Background: Infertility is a medical condition affecting an estimated 186 million people worldwide. Medically assisted fertility treatments allow many of these individuals to have a baby. Insights about preferences of patients who have experienced fertility treatment should be used to inform funding policies and treatment configurations that best reflect the patients’ voice and the value of fertility treatment to patients. Objective: To explore the preferences for fertility treatment attributes of infertile women who had previously undergone or were undergoing fertility treatments—ex post perspective. Methods: We used data from a stated-preference discrete choice experiment (DCE) among 376 Australian women who had undergone or were undergoing fertility treatment. Respondents chose their preferred treatment choices in 12 hypothetical treatment choice scenarios described by seven attributes (success rates, side effects, counselling/peer support, treatment journey, continuity of care, availability of experimental treatment and out-of-pocket cost). We estimated random parameter logit (RPL) and latent class (LC) models that accounted for preference heterogeneity. The results were used to derive price elasticities of demand and marginal willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for the treatment attributes explored within the DCE survey. Results: Income level did not have a significant effect on marginal WTP for fertility treatment attributes. The demand for fertility treatment from an ex post perspective was found to be highly inelastic (treatment cost changes had almost no impact on demand). Success rates and out-of-pocket costs were significant and important predictors of individuals’ treatment choices conditional on the attributes and levels included in the study. These were followed by counselling/peer support, side effects, treatment journey, continuity of care, and availability of experimental treatment, in that order. Respondents were willing to pay $383–$524 per one percentage point increase in the treatment success rate and over $2000 and over $3500 to avoid moderate and significant side effects, respectively (values are reported in AU$). Latent class models revealed that the majority of respondents (51%) were risk-averse success-rate seekers. Conclusion: Infertile women who had previously undergone or were undergoing fertility treatment valued fertility treatment highly as reflected by highly price-inelastic demand. Success rate of treatment and out-of-pocket costs were the most important attributes and largely determined patients’ WTP for fertility treatment relative to the attributes and levels used in the study. While further research should investigate the price sensitivity of women who have not experienced fertility treatment, these results might explain why women continue fertility treatment once they have commenced despite their financial capacity to pay. Future research should also determine patients’ price elasticities for a fertility treatment program with multiple treatment cycles.