High age group 0.75 -10.54 0.77 -8.66 0.64 -20.75 0.72 -9.47 Willingness to subsidise 0.86 1.76 0.82 -2.38 0.80 -0.71 0.78 -2.81 others Efficiency attributes Number of potential 0.89 6.01 0.92 9.02 0.88 9.08 0.86 6.92 Individual health 0.89 5.83 0.90 7.24 0.87 7.65 0.85 5.71 benefits 0.91 7.99 0.92 8.95 0.88 9.65 0.88 9.21 a Based alternative is based on setting all attributes at their mean b Each alternative is identical to the base with the exception of the attribute of interest that is set at one. Percentage differences for aggregate criteria Due to the three categories of the “age of the target group” attribute, calculations were repeated for each group. In this case, only the sub-models according to region were used. Results are presented in Table 10 along with the calculated equity-efficiency trade-offs for each age category. Interventions targeting young age groups: In the regions of Basque Country and Catalonia, fully equitable interventions (as described by the three criteria) are 2.1% more likely to be chosen compared to the baseline value. On the other hand, for a fully efficient intervention this figure increases up to 12%. Concerning the regions of Cantabria and Valencia, the equity aggregate percentage difference in probabilities rises up to 2.7%, while this figure for aggregate efficiency criteria increases only by 0.5% (i.e. 12.5%). Finally in Madrid, for interventions targeting young ages both figures increase, up to 3.6% and 13.7%, respectively. Interventions targeting middle age groups: In this sub-group, results are similar for all three regions. In particular, fully equitable interventions are 1.9% more likely to be chosen (as compared to the baseline case) in Catalonia/Basque country; this figure increases up to 2.3% and 2.7% for the regions of Cantabria/Valencia and
High age group Willingness to subsidise others 0.75 0.86 -10.54 1.76 0.77 0.82 -8.66 -2.38 0.64 0.80 -20.75 -0.71 0.72 0.78 -9.47 -2.81 Efficiency attributes Number of potential Individual health benefits 0.89 0.89 0.91 6.01 5.83 7.99 0.92 0.90 0.92 9.02 7.24 8.95 0.88 0.87 0.88 9.08 7.65 9.65 0.86 0.85 0.88 6.92 5.71 9.21 a Based alternative is based on setting all attributes at their mean b Each alternative is identical to the base with the exception of the attribute of interest that is set at one. Percentage differences for aggregate criteria Due to the three categories of the “age of the target group” attribute, calculations were repeated for each group. In this case, only the sub-models according to region were used. Results are presented in Table 10 along with the calculated equity-efficiency trade-offs for each age category. Interventions targeting young age groups: In the regions of Basque Country and Catalonia, fully equitable interventions (as described by the three criteria) are 2.1% more likely to be chosen compared to the baseline value. On the other hand, for a fully efficient intervention this figure increases up to 12%. Concerning the regions of Cantabria and Valencia, the equity aggregate percentage difference in probabilities rises up to 2.7%, while this figure for aggregate efficiency criteria increases only by 0.5% (i.e. 12.5%). Finally in Madrid, for interventions targeting young ages both figures increase, up to 3.6% and 13.7%, respectively. Interventions targeting middle age groups: In this sub-group, results are similar for all three regions. In particular, fully equitable interventions are 1.9% more likely to be chosen (as compared to the baseline case) in Catalonia/Basque country; this figure increases up to 2.3% and 2.7% for the regions of Cantabria/Valencia and