The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: Should we adopt environmental guidelines?

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 194-206

  Smith, Richard D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Health economics; Methodology; Questionnaire format; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HYPERTENSION; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0034035790     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989x0002000205     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Johannesson M. Theory and methods of economic evaluation of health care. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.
2. McFadden D, Leonard G. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. In: Hausman JA (ed). Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland, 1995.
3. Jones-Lee MW. The economics of safety and physical risk. Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell, 1989.
4. Jones-Lee MW. The value of transport safety. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 1990;6:39-60.
5. Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld, 1986.
6. Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998;7:313-26.
7. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 1999;47:97-123.
8. Mitchell R, Carson R. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989.
9. Hanemann WM. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. J Economic Perspectives. Fall 1994;8(4):19-43.
10. O'Conor RM, Johannesson M, Johansson PO. Stated preferences, real behaviour and anchoring: some empirical evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics. 1999;13: 235-48.
11. Hanemann WM. Some issues in continuous and discrete response contingent valuation studies. Northeastern J of Agricultural Economics. 1985;5:5-13.
12. Hoehn JP, Randall A. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. J Environmental Economics. 1987;14:226-47.
13. Alberini A. Testing willingness to pay models of discrete choice contingent valuation data. Land Economics. 1995;71: 83-95.
14. Milon JW. Contingent valuation experiments for strategic behaviour. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1989;17:293-308.
15. Cameron T, Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a 'dichotomous choice with follow-up' questionnaire. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1994; 24:218-34.
16. Langford IH, Bateman IJ, Langford HD. A multilevel modelling approach to triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics. 1996;7:197-211.
17. Hanemann W, Loomis J, Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agricultural Economics. 1991;73:1255-63.
18. Carson TR, Hanemann WM, Mitchell RC. Determining the Demand for Public Goods by Simulating Referendums at Different Tax Prices, Department of Economics Working Paper, University of California, San Diego, CA, 1986.
19. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Reg. 1993;58: 4602-14.
20. Hanemann WM. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agricultural Economics. 1984;August:332-41.
21. Johannesson M. The contingent valuation controversy in environmental economics and its relevance to health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:116-7.
22. Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Karlsson G. Outcome measurement in economic evaluation. Health Econ. 1996;5:279-96.
23. Miedzybrodzka Z, Shackley P, Donaldson C, Abdalla M. Counting the benefits of screening: a pilot study of willingness to pay for cystic fib rosis carrier screening. J Med Screening. 1994;1:82-3.
24. Miedzybrodzka Z, Semper J, Shackley P, Abdalla M, Donaldson C. Stepwise or couple antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis? Women's preferences and willingness to pay. J Med Genet. 1995;32:282-3.
25. Johannesson M. Economic evaluation of hypertension treatment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1992;8:506-23.
26. Eckerlund I, Johannesson M, Johansson P-O, Tambour M, Zethraeus N. Value for money? A contingent valuation study of the optimal size of the Swedish health care budget. Health Policy. 1995;34:135-43.
27. Johannesson M, Johansson PO, Soderqvist T. Time spent on waiting lists for medical care: an insurance approach. J Health Econ. 1998;17:627-44.
28. Propper C. Contingent valuation of time spent on NHS waiting lists. The Economic Journal. 1990;100:193-9.
29. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 1997;6: 261-73.
30. Chapman S, Wong WL. Incentives for questionnaire respondents. Aust J Public Health. 1991;15:66-7.
31. Kristrom B. Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions. Environmental and Resource Economics. 1993;3:63-71.
32. Holmes TP, Kramer RA. An independent sample test of yeasaying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1995;29:121-32.
33. Herriges JA, Shogren JF. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1996; 30:112-31.
34. Kealy MJ, Turner RW. A test of the equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations. Am J Agricultural Economics. 1993;75:321-31.
35. Sellar C, Stoll JR, Chavas JP. Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: a comparison of nonmarket techniques. Land Economics. 1985;61:156-75.
36. Kealy MJ, Dovidio JF, Rochel ML. Accuracy in valuation is a matter of degree. Land Economics. 1988;65:158-71.
37. Walsh RG, Johnson DM, McKean JR. Issues in nonmarket valuation and policy application: a retrospective glance. Western J Agricultural Economics. 1989;14:178-88.
38. Boyle KJ, Bishop RC. Welfare measurements using contingent valuation: a comparison of techniques. Am J Agricultural Economics. 1988;Feb:20-8.
39. Green D, Jacowitz KE, Kahnemann D, McFadden D. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics. 1998; 20:85-116.
40. Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD. Elicitation and truncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics. 1995;12:161-79.
41. Brown TC, Champ PA, Bishop RC, McCollum DW. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Economics. 1996;72:152-66.
42. Boyle KJ, Johnson FR, McCollum DW, Desvousges WH, Dunford RW, Hudson SP. Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. Land Economics. 1996;72:381-96.
43. Bohm P. Estimating demand for public goods: an experiment. European Economic Review. 1972;3:111-30.
44. Brookshire DS, Ives BC, Schulze WD. The valuation of aesthetic preferences. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1976;3:325-46.
45. Rowc RD, d'Arge RC, Brookshire DS. An experiment on the economic value of visibility. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1980;7:1-19.
46. Scherr BA, Babb EM. Pricing public goods: an experiment with two proposed pricing systems. Public Choice. 1975;23: 35-48.
47. Smith VE. The principle of unanimity and voluntary consent in social choice. J Political Economy. 1977;85:1125-39.
48. Smith VL. Research in Experimental Economics. Vol 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1979.
49. Bohm P. Revealing demand for an actual public good. J Public Economics. 1984;24:135-51.
50. Brubaker ER. Demand disclosures and conditions on exclusion: an experiment. Economic J. 1984;94:536-53.
51. Throsby CD, Withers GA. Strategic bias and demand for public goods: theory and an application to the arts. J Public Economics. 1986;31:307-27.
52. Gregory R. Interpreting measures of economic loss: evidence from contingent valuation and experimental studies. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1986;13:325-37.
53. Gregory R, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. Valuing environmental resources: a constructive approach. J Risk and Uncertainly. 1993;7:177-97.
54. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Schwing RC, Albers WA (eds). Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? New York, Plenum Press, 1980.
55. Slovic P, Griffin D, Tversky A. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In: Hogarth HM (ed). Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
56. Schkade DA, Payne JW. Where do the numbers come from? How people respond to contingent valuation questions. In: Hausman JA (ed). Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. New York: North Holland, 1993.
57. Kahneman D, Knetsch J. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1992;22:57-70.
58. Kahneman D, Ritov I. Determinants of stated WTP for public goods: a study in the headline method. J Risk and Uncertainty. 1994;9:538.
59. Schkade DA, Payne JW. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1994;26:88-109.
60. Kanninen B. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1995;28:114-25.
61. O'Brien B, Gafni A. When do the "dollars" make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Med Decis Making. 1996;16:288-99.
62. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
63. Boyle K, Bishop R, Welsh M. Starting point bias in contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics. 1985;61:188-94.
64. Li CZ, Mattson L. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1995;28: 256-69.
65. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Current Issues in the Design, Administration and Analysis of Contingent Valuation Surveys. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, CA, 1993.
66. Nyquist H. Optimal designs of discrete response experiments in contingent valuation studies. Review of Economics and Statistics. 1992;74:559-63.
67. Kanninen BJ. Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics. 1993;69:138-46.
68. Alberini A, Carson RT. Choice of thresholds for efficient binary discrete choice estimation. Discussion Paper QE93-14, Resources for the Future. Washington, DC, 1993.
69. Boyle K, Welsh M, Bishop R. Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: comment. Land Economics. 1988; 64:94-9.
70. Cooper J. Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1993;24:25-40.
71. Cooper J, Loomis J. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice contingent valuation models. Land Economics. 1992;68:211-24.
72. Cooper J, Loomis J. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice contingent valuation models: reply. Land Economics. 1993;69:203-8.
73. Kanninen BJ, Kristrom B. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice valuation models: comment. Land Economics. 1993;69:199-202.
74. Duffield JW, Patterson DA. Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics. 1991;67:225-39.
75. Alberini A. Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single bound, double bound, and bivariate models. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1995; 28:287-306.
76. Cameron TA. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environmental Economics and Management. 1988;15:355-79.
77. Johanson PO, Kristrom B, Maler KG. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: comment. Am J Agricultural Econ. 1989;71:1054-6.
78. Hanemann WM. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. Am J Agricultural Economics. 1989;71:1057-61.
79. Godfrey LG. Misspecification Tests in Econometrics: The Lagrange Multiplier Principle and Other Approaches. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
80. Ozuna T, Jang KY, Stoll JR. Testing for misspecification in the referendum contingent valuation approach. Am J Agricultural Economics. 1993;75:332-8.
81. Adelbasit KM, Plackett RL. Experimental design for binary data. J Am Statistical Association. 1983;78:90-8.
82. Dorfman J, Kling C, Sexton R. Confidence intervals for elasticities and flexibilities: re-evaluating the ratio of the normals case. Am J Agricultural Economics. 1990;72:1007-17.
83. Langford IH, Bateman IJ. Welfare Measures for Contingent Valuation Studies: Estimation and Reliability. CSERGE GEC Working Paper 93-04, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K., 1993.
84. Adamowicz WL, Fletcher JJ, Grahman-Tomasi T. Functional form and the statistical properties of welfare measures. Am J Agricultural Economics. 1989;71:414-21.
85. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics. 1979;7:1-26.
86. Cooper J. A comparison of approaches to calculating confidence intervals for benefit measures from dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. Land Economics. 1994; 70:111-22.
87. Langford IH. Using a generalised linear mixed model to analyse dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Economics. 1994;70:507-14.