Estimating the willingness-to-pay to avoid the consequences of foodborne illnesses: a discrete choice experiment

Lost productivity is one of the largest costs associated with foodborne illness (FBI); however, the methods used to estimate lost productivity are often criticised for overestimating the actual burden of illness. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was undertaken to elicit preferences to avoid six possible FBIs and estimate whether ability to work, availability of paid sick leave and health-related quality of life affect willingness-to-pay (WTP) to avoid FBI. Respondents (N = 1918) each completed 20 DCE tasks covering two different FBIs [gastrointestinal illness, flu-like illness, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), Guillain–Barre syndrome (GBS), reactive arthritis (ReA), or haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS)]. Attributes included: ability to work, availability of sick leave, treatment costs and illness duration. Choices were modelled using mixed logit regression and WTP was estimated. The WTP to avoid a severe illness was higher than a mild illness. For chronic conditions, the marginal WTP to avoid a chronic illness for one year, ranged from $531 for mild ReA ($1412 for severe ReA) to $1025 for mild HUS ($2195 for severe HUS). There was a substantial increase in the marginal WTP to avoid all the chronic conditions when the ability to work was reduced and paid sick leave was not available, ranging from $6289 for mild IBS to $11,352 for severe ReA. Including factors that reflect productivity and compensation to workers influenced the WTP to avoid a range of FBIs for both acute and chronic conditions. These results have implications for estimating the burden and cost of FBI.