Skip to main content

Table 3 Linear regression for reservation prices in run two (two-level random effects model)

From: Assessing social preferences in reimbursement negotiations for new Pharmaceuticals in Oncology: an experimental design to analyse willingness to pay and willingness to accept

 

Overall

Price groups

Model

Model 0

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 3b

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Price magnitudec

 

100 k$

1$

100 k$

1$

100 k$

1$

Estimates of fixed effects (explanatory)

Est.

sig.

Est.

sig.

Est.

sig.

Est.

sig.

Est.

sig.

Est.

sig.

Est.

sig.

Est.

sig.

Est.

sig.

Est.

sig.

Est.

sig.

Intercept

1.60

a

0.41

− 0.01

− 0.15

− 0.15

0.59

0.58

0.40

0.24

− 0.01

0.55

Survival

  

0.13

a

0.15

a

0.15

a

0.15

a

0.11

a

0.13

a

0.13

a

0.14

a

0.13

a

0.14

a

ROLE GROUP [=0]d

  

0.26

b

0.26

b

0.22

0.22

−0.11

0.28

b

−0.23

0.31

b

−0.22

0.30

b

PRICE GROUP [=0]

  

0.37

a

0.40

a

0.36

a

0.36

a

            

RANK Patient

  

−0.01

      

−0.02

0.03

        

RANK Premium payers

  

−0.05

−0.01

−0.00

− 0.00

−0.06

− 0.05

−0.01

− 0.01

−0.00

− 0.03

RANK Investors

  

−0.06

−0.04

− 0.03

−0.04

− 0.06

−0.06

− 0.03

−0.07

− 0.01

−0.10

RANK Own role

  

−0.05

      

0.02

−0.11

        

RANK Negotiation partner

  

0.00

0.08

0.07

0.07

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.05

0.10

0.01

Stakeholder No1 (Patient = 0, self = 1) [=0]

    

−0.12

−0.04

−0.04

    

0.02

−0.29

0.08

−0.21

ROLE GROUP [=0] × PRICE GROUP [=0]

  

−0.35

b

−0.48

a

−0.39

b

−0.39

b

            

ROLE GROUP [=0] × Survival

  

−0.00

0.00

0.00

−0.01

− 0.01

0.00

− 0.00

0.01

− 0.00

0.01

PRICE GROUP [=0] × Survival

  

−0.02

b

−0.02

b

−0.02

b

−0.02

b

            

Stakeholder No1 [=0] × Survival

    

−0.02

b

−0.02

b

      

−0.03

b

−0.01

−0.03

b

−0.01

Stakeholder No1 [=0] × ROLE [=0] × Survival

        

−0.01

            

Stakeholder No1 [=1] × ROLE [=0] × Survival

        

−0.03

b

            

Estimates of fixed effects (control variables)

                      

Performance: attention screening question

      

0.26

a

0.26

a

        

0.20

0.31

b

Performance: comprehension question 4

      

−0.01

−0.01

        

0.07

−0.03

Health experience & risk behaviour

      

X

 

X

         

X

 

X

 

Demographics

  

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

Estimates of covariance parameters

                      

Residual

0.29

a

0.01

a

0.01

a

0.01

a

0.01

a

0.01

a

0.01

a

0.01

a

0.01

a

0.01

a

0.01

a

Intercept [subject]e, Variance

0.50

a

0.39

a

0.36

a

0.33

a

0.33

a

0.38

a

0.37

a

0.33

a

0.36

a

0.30

a

0.33

a

Survival [subject], Variance

  

0.01

a

0.00

a

0.00

a

0.00

a

0.00

a

0.01

a

0.00

a

0.01

a

0.00

a

0.01

a

Model summary

                      

Observations: price statements (participants)

1190

(238)

1190

(238)

1020

(204)

1020

(204)

1020

(204)

610

(122)

580

(116)

525

(105)

495

(99)

525

(105)

495

(99)

Intraclass correlation (ICC)e

0.63

 

0.97

 

0.97

 

0.96

 

0.96

 

0.97

 

0.96

 

0.97

 

0.96

 

0.97

 

0.96

 

Proportional reduction of error term (R2)f

  

0.49

 

0.53

 

0.56

 

0.56

 

0.50

 

0.51

 

0.56

 

0.51

 

0.61

 

0.56

 

R2 level 1g

  

0.96

 

0.96

 

0.96

 

0.96

 

0.96

 

0.95

 

0.96

 

0.95

 

0.96

 

0.95

 

R2 level 2h

  

0.22

 

0.28

 

0.33

 

0.33

 

0.23

 

0.26

 

0.33

 

0.26

 

0.40

 

0.34

 

Model description

                      

preferences

  

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

patient orientation

    

X

 

X

 

X

     

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

 

performance & personality

      

X

 

X

         

X

 

X

 
  1. Depending variable: reservation prices 1US$; only monotone preferences included
  2. Survival (in months); PRICE GROUP (0, 100 k$; 1 1$); ROLE GROUP (0, REGULATOR; 1, SELLER); Comprehension question (0, wrong; 1, correct); Attention screener (0, wrong; 1, correct); RANK Stakeholder (1, highest … 5, lowest rank); Stakeholder No1 (0, Patient; 1, Own role; excluded if else); Health experience (5 questions on own health history and history with family or friends); Risk behaviour (4 questions on economic, 4 questions on social risk behaviour)
  3. asignificant at 1% level; bsignificant at 5% level
  4. cGame currency converted to real payoff at the end of the experiment
  5. dVariable [=1] not displayed, if redundant to [=0];
  6. eDue to the significant intercept at level 2 (subject or participant), the two-level model is indicated. The ICC shows for the null model that 63% of variance is explained by differences between subjects (level 2) and 37% by differences within subjects (level 1). For the other models the ICC explains the remaining variance
  7. fE.g. for Model 1, the proportional reduction of the predictive error is 49%
  8. gE.g. for Model 1, the predictive power is 96% higher with the level 1 predictor compared to the null model
  9. hE.g. for Model 1, the predictive power is 22% higher with the level 2 predictor compared to the null model