Aiding priority setting in health care: Is there a role for the contingent valuation method?

Health Economics

Volumn 6, Issue 6, 1997, Pages 603-612

  Olsen, Jan Abel ^a,b,c  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b Centre for Health Program Evaluation   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

Author keywords

Economic evaluation; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH ECONOMICS; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SOCIAL VALUES;

EID: 0031435790     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199711)6:6<603::AID-HEC285>3.0.CO;2-2     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Wagstaff, A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. Journal of Health Economics 1991; 10: 21-41.
2. Olsen, J. A. Persons vs years: two ways of eliciting implicit weights. Health Economics 1994; 3: 39-46.
3. Mooney, G. Agency in health care: what's the maximand?, HERU Discussion Paper 10/91, University of Aberdeen, 1991.
4. Mooney, G. and Lange, M. Ante-natal screening: what contributes to benefit? Social Science and Medicine 1993; 37: 873-878.
5. Donaldson, C. Theory and practice of willingness to pay for health care, HERU Discussion Paper 01/93, University of Aberdeen, 1993.
6. Donaldson, C. Willingness to pay for publicly provided health care. PhD Thesis, Department of Economics, University of Aberdeen, 1995.
7. 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.
8. Gyldmark, M. and Morrison, G. C. Re-appraising the use of contingent valuation. A reply. Health Economics 1993; 2: 363- 365.
9. 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: 4601-614.
10. Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1988.
11. Hausman, J. A. (ed.) Contingent Valuation. A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1993.
12. Johannesson, M., Jönsson, B. and Karlsson, G. Outcome measurement in economic evaluation. Health Economics 1996; 5: 279-296.
13. Diamond, P. A. and Hausman, J. A. On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values. In Hausman, J. A. (ed.) Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1993; 3-38.
14. Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J. L. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1992; 22: 57-70.
15. Andreoni, J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal 1990; 100: 464- 477
16. Schkade, D. A. and Payne, J. W. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994; 26: 88-109.
17. Seip, K. and Strand, J. Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: a contingent valuation study with real payments. Environmental and Resource Economics 1992; 2: 91-106.
18. Hanemann, W. M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994; 8: 19- 44.
19. Loomis, J., Lockwood, M. and DeLacy, T. Some empirical evidence on embedding effects in contingent valuation of forest protection. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1993; 24: 45- 55
20. Arrow, K. Contingent valuation of nonuse values: observations and questions. In Hausman, J. A. (ed.): Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1993; 479-483.
21. Olsen, J. A. and Donaldson, C. Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes, Social Science and Medicine in press.
22. Stiglitz, J. Economics of the Public Sector. New York: Norton, 1988.
23. Clark, D. and Olsen, J. A. Agency in health care with an endogenous budget constraint. Journal of Health Economics 1994; 13: 231- 251.
24. Gafni, A. Willingness to pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decision making about health care programs. Medical Care 1990; 29: 1246-1252.
25. Morrison, G. C. and Gyldmark, M. Appraising the use of contingent valuation. Health Economics 1992; 1: 233-243.
26. Culyer, A. J. The normative economics of health care finance and provision. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 1989; 5: 34- 58.
27. Evans, R. G. and Wolfson, A. D. Faith, hope and charity: health care in the utility function. Discussion Paper, Department of Economics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1980.
28. Evans, R. G. Strained Mercy: The Economics of Canadian Health Care, Toronto, Butterworths, 1984.
29. Schulze, W. D. Use of direct methods for valuing natural resource damages In Kopp, R. J. and Kerry Smith, V. (eds) Valuing Natural Assets: The Economics of Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1993; 204-230.
30. Blomquist, G. Estimating the value of life and safety: recent developments. In Jones-Lee, M. W. (ed.) The Value of Life and Safety. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1982; 27-40.
31. Jones-Lee, W.M., Hammerton, M. and Phillips, P. R. The value of safety: results from a national sample survey, The Economic Journal 1985; 95: 49-72.
32. Jones-Lee, M. W., Loomes, G. and Phillips, P. R. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation vs standard gambles. Oxford Economic Papers 1995; 47: 676-695.
33. Desvousges, W. H., Reed Johnson, F., Dunford, R. W., Hudson, S. P., Wilson, K. N. and Boyle, K. J. Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability. In Hausman, J. A. (ed.) Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1993; 91-159.
34. Portney, P. R. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994; 8: 3- 17.
35. Gyldmark, M. Preferences for health care services in Denmark. An investigation through contingent valuation. Paper presented at the 14th Meeting of the Nordic Health Economist Group in Tromsø, August 18-20, 1993.
36. Frey, B. S. and Eichenberger, R. Economic incentives transform psychological anomalies. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1994; 23: 215-234.
37. Sandmo, A. Buchanan on political economy: a review article. Journal of Economic Literature 1990; 28: 50-65.
38. Self, P. Econocrats and the Policy Process: The Politics and Philosophy of Cost-Benefit Analysis. London: Macmillan, 1975.
39. Harsanyi, J. Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy 1955; 63: 309-321.
40. Sen, A. Rational fools: a critique of the behavioural foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1977; 6: 317-344.
41. Diamond, P. A. and Hausman, J. A. Contingent valuations: is some numbers better than no number? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994; 8: 45-64.
42. Eddy, D. M. Oregon's plan: should it be approved? Journal of the American Medical Association 1991; 266: 2439-2445.
43. Nord, E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Health Policy 1993; 24: 227-238.