An estimation of US horse-owner/caregiver willingness-to-pay for daily use and infectious upper respiratory disease treatment options.

This research aimed to assess the willingness of American horse-owners/caregivers to pay for daily use of their horses and treatment options for respiratory disease. It revealed that owners are willing to pay more for less days out of use due to the horse’s rest requirement and prefer oral administration over injections.

Objective and Importance

• The research’s goal was to quantify the value that horse owners/caregivers in the US place on daily use of their horses. It also aimed to learn about their willingness to pay for different attributes of equine treatment options for respiratory diseases.
• This research is vital in filling the existing research gap about the valuation of infectious treatment options in horses. It presents key insights for veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies in understanding horse-owners/caregivers’ preferences and buying behavior.

Methods Used

• The researchers used an online questionnaire survey where they collected information on owner demographic, horse care, and horse use from the respondents.
• A choice experiment was incorporated into the survey where the respondents were presented with hypothetical disease treatment options. These options had distinct variables like daily dosage, number of resting days needed, route of administration, and the out-of-pocket cost to the owner/caregiver.
• The data was then analyzed through a rank-ordered logit analysis, which helped in estimating the willingness-to-pay for daily use and treatment options.

Key Findings

• The average horse-owner with an uninsured and insured horse was found ready to pay $12.07 and $17.95 per day, respectively, to lower the number of lost use days due to the horse’s need for rest.
• The respondents displayed a preference for oral treatment administration over treatments requiring intramuscular injections.

Limitations and Conclusions

• Limitations of the study include potential self-selection bias as it was based on an online survey. Additionally, a sample size calculation was not performed, which could impact the accuracy of the findings.
• Despite these limitations, the study’s findings can guide veterinarians and pharmaceutical firms in their promotion of various treatment options to horse-owners/caregivers. Particularly beneficial may be targeting promotion efforts towards equine-owners with higher daily use values, such as the owners of insured horses.