International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 31:4 (2015), Page 1 of 7. c  Cambridge University Press 2015 doi:10.1017/S0266462315000409 Assessments WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR LUNG CANCER TREATMENT: PATIENT VERSUS GENERAL PUBLIC VALUES Sumitra Thongprasert Chiang Mai University Bruce Crawford Adelphi Values bcrawford@jp.imshealth.com Rungpetch Sakulbumrungsil Chulalongkorn University Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk Monash University Sunway Campus Sirinthip Petcharapiruch, Jittrakul Leartsakulpanitch Pfizer (Thailand) Unchalee Permsuwan Chiang Mai University Objectives: Lung cancer has been the most common cancer since 1985, accounting for 12–13 percent of cancer cases worldwide. Newer targeted therapies with potential increased survival benefits may not be affordable to patients. Many countries use arbitrary thresholds to determine whether a medical intervention is cost-effective. As such, many effective, albeit expensive, therapies are not being reimbursed. To understand the value placed on effective therapies, this study evaluates the patient and public willingness to pay (WTP) for a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for lung cancer treatments using Thailand as an example. Methods: A total of 300 subjects responded to hypothetical lung cancer health states, described by three levels of severity and two levels of side effects, and provided their valuation of the level of quality of life and their WTP to improve from one state to another. Results: The patients with the lowest income and general public were willing to pay more than twice the threshold for acceptability in Thailand (US Dollar 5,123/QALY [Thai Baht 160,000/QALY]). This increased significantly by wealth category. Patients’ WTP was associated with quality of life, financial difficulties, health insurance, diarrhea, and wealth. Conclusions: The current study highlights the value patients and general public place on effective lung cancer therapies. Keywords: Lung cancer, Willingness-to-pay, Health economics, Cancer treatment, Pharmacoeconomics Cancer continues to be one of the leading causes of health burden worldwide, with an estimated 12.66 million people being diagnosed and 7.56 million dying from cancer in 2008 (1). In 2008 alone, cancer was responsible for an estimated loss of 169.3 million healthy years (2). According to the World Health Organization, lung cancer has consistently been the most common cancer worldwide since 1985, accounting for 12–13 percent of all cancers. Given the high cost of treatment for cancers and other dis- eases, health economics has become an increasingly important tool for governments and healthcare insurers to evaluate the value of treatment. Although health economics are being used for determining efficient allocation of limited funding, there has been particular emphasis on high cost treatments, such as oncology. Many countries evaluate the “value” of medical in- terventions using arbitrary thresholds to help in determining what would be considered a cost-effective therapy. As such, We thank Dr. Teerapon Dhippayom, Ms. Rosarin Sruamsiri, and Mr. Piyameth Dilokthornsakul, the research teams from Naresuan University, and Ms. Kloyjai San-in from Chiang Mai University. This study was funded by Pfizer (Thailand) Ltd. many effective, albeit expensive, new therapies are not being reimbursed by insurers or governments. The costs of these treatments are an important issue from the patient’s perspective, because their ability to pay may ulti- mately determine their treatment course. The more expensive newer targeted therapies that may increase survival may not be affordable by the majority of patients. Universal Healthcare in- surance is funded by the general public, so their perspectives on the inherent value of treatments and their willingness to fund such treatments is also of essential for policy makers to consider. In health economic evaluations, the cost of interventions must be compared with health benefits to determine whether the value of these benefits exceed the costs incurred. The bene- fits of health interventions are frequently measured by means of quality-adjusted life-years, which account for the patient’s qual- ity of life (QOL) through their remaining life-years. Another approach is contingent valuation, or willingness to pay (WTP) method. Within the healthcare setting, the underlying premise is that a person’s willingness to trade money for a defined im- provement in health status is their assessment of the value of that intervention inclusive of treatments and procedures. WTP for cancer treatment has not been greatly studied, specifically in the Asia region. Lang conducted a study to elicit 1