Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited

Health Economics

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 145-159

  Donaldson, Cam ^a,d   Shackley, Phil ^b   Abdalla, Mona ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Economic evaluation; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CYSTIC FIBROSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HETEROZYGOTE DETECTION; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 0030905163     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199703)6:2<145::AID-HEC253>3.0.CO;2-N     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Torrance, G. W. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. Journal of Health Economics 1986; 5: 1-30.
2. Miedzybrodzka, Z., Shackley, P., Donaldson, C. and Abdalla, M. Counting the benefits of screening: a pilot study of willingness to pay for cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Journal of Medical Screening 1994; 1: 82-83.
3. Johannesson, M. and Fagerberg, B. A health-economic comparison of diet and drug treatment in obese men with hypertension. Journal of Hypertension 1992; 10: 1063-1070.
4. Donaldson, C., Shackley, P., Abdallam M. and Miedzybrodzka, Z. Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Economics 1995; 4: 439-452.
5. Ryan, M., Ratcliffe, J. and Tucker, J. Using willingness to pay to value alternative models of antenatal care. Social Science and Medicine 1997; 44: 371-380.
6. Wald, N. Couple screening for cystic fibrosis. Lancet 1991; 338: 1318.
7. Altman, D. G. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.
8. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Standard Occupational Classifications. London: HMSO, 1991.
9. Schkade, D. A. and Payne, J. W. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994; 26: 88-109.
10. Morris, J. K. and Oppenheimer, P. M. Cost comparison of different methods of screening for cystic fibrosis. Journal of Medical Screening 1995; 2: 22-27.
11. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R, Learner, E. E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. Report of the NOAA Panel of Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 1993; 58: 4601-4614.
12. Johannesson, M. The contingent valuation controversy in environmental economics and its relevance to health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 1996; 1: 116-117.
13. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47: 263-291.
14. Kahneman, D. and Tversky. A. The psychology of preferences. Scientific American 1982; 246: 136-142.
15. Schoemaker, P. J. H. The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature 1982; 20: 529-563.
16. Williamson, O. E. Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press, 1975.
17. Cairns, J., Shackley, P. and Hundley, V. Decision making with respect to diagnostic testing: a method of valuing the benefits of antenatal screening. Medical Decision Making 1996; 16: 161-168.
18. Johannesson, M., Jonsson, B. and Borgquist, L. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy - results of a Swedish pilot study. Journal of Health Economics 1991; 10: 461-474.
19. Smith, V. K., Desvouges, W. H. and Fisher, A. A comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating environmental benefits. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1986; 280-290
20. Bateman, I., Willis, K. and Garrod, G. Consistency between contingent valuation estimates: a comparison of two studies of UK national parks. Regional Studies 1994; 28: 457-474.