Keywords
dengue
vaccines
cost-benefit analysis
health economy
medical economy
How to Cite
Abstract
Dengue has shown a fast growth worldwide. Therefore, this study aims to determine the Money Availability (DAP, in Spanish) in order to do a financial valuation of the people’s access to a dengue vaccine and the related factors. A contingent valuation cross-sectional study was conducted in order to assess the Money Availability and the related factors in the population of Piura, Perú. A hetero-applied questionnaire with a double binary-dichotomic format and discrete choice was used; it was applied in the mode of a personal interview. The analysis included 371 individuals. The highest Money Availability was S/. 210 (New Peruvian Sol, PEN). The variables associated with buying the vaccine were working as a health professional, having earned a college degree, having personal or family background of dengue. The vaccine pricing is a key factor in the development and standardization of this new market. The public health authorities must consider the financial evidence thus available when designing sustainable interventions for this new technology.
2. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Global Strategy for Dengue Prevention and Control 2012-2020. Ginebra: OMS 2012.
3. Guy B, Barrere B, Malinowski C, Saville M, Teyssou R, Lang J. From research to phase III: preclinical, industrial and clinical development of the Sanofi Pasteur tetravalent dengue vaccine. Vaccine. 2011;29:7229-41. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.06.094
4. Shepard DS, Coudeville L, Halasa YA, Zambrano B, Dayan GH. Economic Impact of Dengue Illness in the Americas. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;84(2):200-207. https://www.doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0503
5. Shepard DS, Undurraga EA, Halasa YA. Economic and Disease Burden of Dengue in Southeast Asia. PLOS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(2):e2055. https://www.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002055
6. Guzman J. Situación Epidemiológica de dengue en el Perú, a la SE 17-2017. MINSA. 2017; 26(17):540-543.
7. Centro Nacional de Epidemiología, Prevención y Control de Enfermedades. Casos de dengue según departamentos, Perú, a la SE 52-2017. Lima: Ministerio de Salud de Perú; 2017.
8. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Dengue Vaccine: WHO Position Paper - July 2016. Weekly Epidemiological Record. WHO. 2016;91(30):349-364.
9. Roland D. Mexico Approves Sanofi’s Dengue Vaccine but Pricing Questions Remain. The Wall Street Journal [Internet]. 2015. Disponible en: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexico-approves-sanofis-dengue-vaccine-but-pricing-questions-remain-1449676613
10. McArthur MA, Sztein MB, Edelman R. Dengue vaccines: recent developments, ongoing challenges and current candidates. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2013; 12(8):933-953.
11. Godoi IP, Santos AS, Reis EA, Lemos LLP, Brandao CRM, Alvares J, et al. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV, Dengvaxia®) in brazil; Implications for Future Pricing Considerations. Front. Pharmacol. 2017;8(41). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2017.00041
12. Palanca-Tan R. The demand for a dengue vaccine: a contingent valuation survey in Metro Manila. Vaccine. 2008;26:914-923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.12.011
13. Lee JS, Mogasala V, Lim JK, Carabali M, Sirivichayakul C, Anh DD, et al. A Multi-country Study of the Household Willingness-to-Pay for Dengue Vaccines: Household Surveys in Vietnam, Thailand and Colombia. PLOS Negl Trop Dis. 2015;9(6):e0003810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003810
14. Harapan H, Anwar S, Bustamam A, Radiansyah A, Angraini P, Fasli R, et al. Willingness to pay for a dengue vaccine and its associated determinants in Indonesia: a community-based, cross sectional survey in Aceh. Acta Tropica. 2017;166:249-256.
15. Hadisoemarto PF, Castro MC. Public acceptance and willingness-to-pay for a future dengue vaccine: a community-based survey in Bandung, Indonesia. PLOS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7(9):e2427. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002427
16. Herdman M, Cole A, Hoyle CK, Coles V, Carroll S, Devlin N. Sources and Characteristics of Utility weights for Economic Evaluation of Pediatric Vaccines: A Systematic Review. Value Health. 2016;19:255-266.
17. Taylor RS, Drummong MF, Salkeld G, Sullivan SD. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ. 2004;329(7472):972-975.
18. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Dengue Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, prevention and control. Ginebra: OMS, 2010.
19. Plotkin S, Orenstein W, Offit P. Vaccines. Section One: General Aspects of Vaccination. 6.a ed. Filadelfia: Elsevier Saunders; 2013.
20. Perú, Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. Encuesta Demográfica y de Salud Familiar ENDES. Lima: Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática, 2015. Cap. 1, Características de los hogares y la población; p. 67-83.
21. Van der Pol M, Shiell A, Au F, Johnston D, Tough S. Convergent validity between a discrete choice experiment and a direct, open-ended method: comparison of preferred attribute levels and willingness to pay estimates. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(12):2043-2050.
22. Perú, Dirección General de Medicamentos, Insumos y Drogas. Observatorio de Productos Farmacéuticos: vacuna antiamarílica. Dirección General de Medicamentos, Insumos y Drogas. Lima, Ministerio de Salud. 2016 [revisión 2017 abr. 02]. Disponible en: http://observatorio.digemid.minsa.gob.pe/
23. Cáceres-Manrique FM, Vesga-Gómez C, Perea-Florez X, Ruitort M, Talbot Y. Conocimientos, Actitudes y Prácticas sobre Dengue en Dos Barrios de Bucaramanga, Colombia. Rev salud pública. 2009;11(1):27-38.
24. Cabrera R, Gómez de la Torre-Del Carpio A, Bocanegra Jesús AI, Correa Borit JM, Huamaní Fuente FJ, Urrunaga Poma PV, et al. Conocimientos, actitudes y prácticas sobre dengue en estudiantes de educación primaria en chorrillos, Lima, Perú. An Fac Med. 2016;77(2):129-135.
25. Hernández-Escolar J, Consuegra-Mayor C, Herazo-Beltrán Y. Conocimientos, actitudes y prácticas sobre dengue en un barrio de la ciudad de Cartagena de Indias. Rev Salud Pública. 2014;16(2):281-292.
26. Hadinegoro SR, Arredondo-García JL, Capeding MR, Deseda C, Chotpitayasunondh T, Dietze R, et al. Efficacy and Long-Term Safety of a Dengue Vaccine in Regions of Endemic Disease. NEJM. 2015;373(13):1195-1206.
27. Gunatilake H, Yang JC, Pattanayak S, Choe KA. Good Practices for Estimating Reliable Willingness-to-Pay Values in the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector. Manila: Banco Asiático de Desarrollo; 2007.
28. Fleischman-Foreit KG, Foreit JR. Willingness to pay surveys: for setting prices, for reproductive health products and services. A User’s Manual. Population Council. Washington: USAID; 2004.
29. Accent RAND Europe. Review of Stated Preference and Willingness to Pay Methods. Accent RAND Europe. 2010.
30. Perú, Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción del Empleo. Reumneración Mínima Vital, 2017. Lima: Ministerio de Trabajo y Promoción del Empleo; 2017. Disponible en: http://www2.trabajo.gob.pe/
31. Banco Mundial. Price level ratio of PPP conversion factor (GDP) to market exchange rate. Washington: Banco Mundial; 2017. Disponible en: http://data.worldbank.org/
32. Filmer D, Pritchett L. The effect of household wealth on educational attainment: evidence from 35 countries. Popul Dev Rev. 1999;25(1):85-120.
33. Umeh IB, Nduka SO, Ekwunife OI. Mothers’ willingness to pay for HPV vaccines in Anambra state, Nigeria: a cross sectional contingent valuation study. Cost Eff Resourc Alloc. 2016;14:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-016-0057-0
34. Cookson R. Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Econ. 2003;12:891-894.
35. Shono A, Kondo M, Ohmae H, Okubo I. Willingness to pay for public health services in rural Central Java, Indonesia: Methodological considerations when using the contingent valuation method Soc Sci Med. 2014;110:31-40.
36. Puig-Junoy J. Evaluación económica de medicamentos y tecnologías médicas. Avances. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra; 2016. Cap. 2, El análisis coste-beneficio: métodos de estimación de la disponibilidad a pagar; p. 57-75.
Copyright notice
The Journal Management and Health Policies is registered under the Creative Commons Recognition 4.0 International license. Therefore, this work can be reproduced, distributed and publicly communicated in digital format, provided that the name of the authors and the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana are recognized. It is allowed to quote, adapt, transform, autoarchive, republish and create from the material, for any purpose (including commercial), provided that authorship is properly acknowledged, a link to the original work is provided and if changes have been mad. The Pontificia Universidad Javeriana does not retain the rights over published works and the contents are the exclusive responsibility of the authors, who preserve their moral, intellectual, privacy and publicity rights.
The endorsement of the intervention of the work (revision, style correction, translation, layout) and its subsequent disclosure is granted through a license to use and not through a transfer of rights, which means that the journal and the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana disclaims any liability that may arise from ethical misconduct on the part of the authors. As a result of the protection provided by the license for use, the journal is not obliged to publish retractions or modify the information already published, unless the erratum arises from the process of editorial management. The publication of contents in this magazine does not represent royalties for taxpayers.