Estimating the monetary value of health care: Lessons from environmental economics

Health Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 3-16

  Hanley, Nick ^a   Ryan, Mandy ^b   Wright, Robert ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DATA ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; POLICY MAKING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIAL VALUES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 0037252391     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.763     Document Type: Review

References (95)

1. Ward F, Beal D. Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 2000.
2. Palmquist R. Hedonic models. In Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, van den Berg JCM (ed.). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 1999.
3. Hanley N. Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy making. Environ Plann C 2001; 19: 103-118.
4. Ward KM, Duffield JW. Natural Resource Damages: Law and Economics. Wiley Law Publications: New York, 1992.
5. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C et al. Eliciting public preferences for health care: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5(5).
6. Hutton J, Maynard A. A NICE challenge for health economics. Health Econ 2000; 9: 89-93.
7. Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds). Contingent Valuation of Environmental Preferences: Assessing Theory and Practice in the USA, Europe, and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999.
8. Bateman I, Carson R, Day B et al. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 2002.
9. Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ 1998; 7: 313-326.
10. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999; 47: 97-123.
11. Olsen JA, Donaldson C. Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programme. Soc Sci Med 2000; 46: 1-12.
12. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future challenges. Paper Presented at International Health Economic Association Conference, University of York, 2001.
13. Foster V, Bateman IJ, Harley D. Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison. J Agri Econ 1997; 48: 123-138.
14. Carson RT, Groves T, Machina MJ. Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Plenary Address, Ninth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Oslo, June 1999.
15. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on contingent valuation. Fed Reg 1993; 58: 4602-4614.
16. Sugden R. Public goods and contingent valuation. In Valuing Environmental Preferences, Bateman I, Willis K (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999.
17. Burton AC, Carson KS, Chilton SM, Hutchison WG. Experimental insights into hypothetical referenda. Paper Presented to Agricultural Economics Society conference, Aberystwyth, April 2002.
18. Brown T, Champ P, Bishop R, McCollum D. Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Econ 1996; 72: 152-166.
19. McFadden D, Leonard C. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. In: Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Housman J (ed.) Cambridge Economics, Inc.: Cambridge, MA, 1993.
20. Kanninen B. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 1995; 28: 114-125.
21. Ready RC, Buzby JC, Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Econ 1996; 72: 397-411.
22. Blamey R, Bennett J, Morrison J. Yea-saying in contingent valuation surveys. Land Econ 1999; 75: 126-141.
23. Bateman I, Munro A, Rhodes B, Starmer C, Sugden R. Does part-whole bias exist? An empirical investigation. Econ J 1997; 107: 322-332.
24. Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 1991; 73: 1255-1263.
25. Hanemann M, Kanninen B. Statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds). Contingent Valuation of Environmental Preferences: Assessing Theory and Practice in the USA, Europe, and Developing Countries. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999.
26. McLeod DM, Bergland O. Willingness-to-pay estimates using the double-bounded dichotomous-choice contingent valuation format: a test for validity and precision in a Bayesian framework. Land Econ 1999; 75: 115-125.
27. Hanley N, Kristrom. B. What's it worth? Exploring value uncertainty using interval questions in Contingent Valuation. University of Glasgow Discussion Papers in Economics, no. 2002/10, 2002.
28. Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Borgquist L. Willingness to pay for antihyperintensive therapy - results of a Swedish pilot study. J Health Econ 1991; 10: 461-474.
29. Donaldson C, Thomas R, Torgerson D. Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay. Appl Econ 1997; 29: 79-84.
30. Ryan M, Scott D, Donaldson C. Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous methods. Paper Presented at International Health Economics Association, Rotterdam, 1999.
31. Donaldson C. Developing the method of 'willingness to pay' for assessment of community preferences for health care. Final report to Biomed 2 Programme (PL950832) of the European Commission. Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen and Departments of Economics and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 1999.
32. Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Philips PR. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation versus standard gambles. Oxford Econ Papers 1995; 47: 676-695.
33. Berrens R, Bohra A, Silva C, Brookshire D, McKee M. Contingent values for New Mexico instream flows: tests of scope, group size reminder and temporal reliability. J Environ Manage 2000; 58: 73-90.
34. Carson R. CVM surveys and tests of insensitivity of scope. In Determining the Value of Non-market Goods, Kopp R, Pommerehne W, Schwartt N (eds). Kluwer: Boston, 1997.
35. Fox JA, Shogren JF, Hayes DJ, Kliebenstein JB. CVM-X: calibrating contingent values with experimental auction markets. Am J Agric Econ 1998; 80: 455-465.
36. Frykblom P. Hypothetical question modes and real willingness to pay. J Environ Econ Manage 1997; 34: 275-287.
37. Balistreri E, McClelland G, Poe G, Schulze W. Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? a laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environ Resour Econ 2000; 18: 275-292.
38. Carson R, Flores N, Mitchell R. The theory and measurement of passive use value. In Contingent Valuation of Environmental Preferences: Assessing Theory and Practice in the USA, Europe, and Developing Countries, Bateman IJ, Willis KG. (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999.
39. MacMillan D, Smart T, Thorburn A. A field experiment involving cash and hypothetical donations. Environ Resour Econ 1999; 14: 399-412.
40. Schlapfer F, Roschwitz A, Hanley N. A comparison of contingent valuation and voting behaviour: landscape protection in Switzerland. Mimeo, Economics Department, University of Glasgow, 2002.
41. Carson RT, Flores NE, Martin KM, Wright JL. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Econ 1996; 72: 80-99.
42. Kenyon W, Hanley N. Economic and participatory approaches to environmental evaluation. Discussion Papers in Economics, 2000-15, University of Glasgow, 2000.
43. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
44. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama K, Freeman P. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector. J Health Econ 2001; 20: 441-457.
45. Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public's views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. Br Med J 1999; 318: 916-919.
46. Sagoff M. The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1988.
47. Kahneman D, Knetsch J. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manage 1992; 22: 57-70.
48. Spash C, Hanley N. Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol Econ 1995; 12: 191-208.
49. Hanley N, Milne J. Ethical beliefs and behaviour in contingent valuation. J Environ Plann Manage 1996; 39: 255-272.
50. Alvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N, Wright R. Estimating the benefits of agri-environmental policy: econometric issues in open-ended contingent valuation studies. J Environ Plann Manage 1999; 42: 23-43.
51. Kidholm K, Langkilde LK. Interpretation of zero bids in contingent valuation surveys. Paper presented at the 15th Nordic Health Economists' Study Group Meeting, Reykyavick, 1994.
52. Kartman B, Stalhammar N-O, Johannesson M. Valuation of health changes with the contingent valuation method: a test of scope and question order effects. Health Econ 1996; 5: 531-542.
53. Berwick D, Weinstein M. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Med Care 1985; 23: 881-893.
54. Bateman I, Langford I. Non-users WTP for a national park: an application of the contingent valuation method. Reg Stud 1997; 31: 571-582.
55. Hanley N, Salt C, Wilson M, Culligan-Dunsmore M. Evaluating alternative "countermeasures" against food contamination resulting from nuclear accidents. J Agric Econ 2001; 52: 92-109.
56. Georgiou S, Bateman I, Cole M, Hadley D. (2000). Contingent ranking and valuation of water quality improvements. CSERGE Discussion Paper 2000-18, University of East Anglia.
57. Bateman I, Langford I, Nishikawa N, Lake I. The Axford Debate revisited: a case study illustrating different approaches to aggregation of benefits data. J Environ Plann Manage 2000; 43: 291-302.
58. Ryan M. Using willingness to pay to assess the benefits of assisted reproductive techniques. Health Econ 1996; 5: 543-558.
59. Barton D. The transferability of benefits transfer. PhD Thesis, Agricultural University of Norway, Aas, 2001.
60. Bergland O, Magnussen K, Navrud S. (1995). Benefit transfer: testing for accuracy and reliability. Discussion Paper D-03/1995, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, The Agricultural University of Norway.
61. Brouwer R. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol Econ 2000; 32: 137-152.
62. Oglethorpe D, Hanley N, McVittie A (2001) Estimating the value of environmental features: stage two. Report to MAFF, London.
63. Desvouges WH, Johnson FR, Banzhaf HS. Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited Information. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 1998.
64. Shrestha R, Loomis J. Testing a meta-analysis model for benefits transfer in international outdoor recreation. Ecol Econ 2001; 39: 67-84.
65. Santos JML. Accounting for variation in contingent valuation estimates of landscape benefits: genuine value differences or method-led divergences? Paper Presented to the annual EAERE conference, Oslo, June 1999.
66. Bennet J, Blamey R. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 2001.
67. Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 535-546.
68. Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, Louviere J. (1998). Choice modelling and tests of benefits transfer. Choice Modelling Research Report 8, University of NSW, Canberra.
69. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agri Econ 1998; 80: 64-75.
70. Bullock CH, Elston DA, Chalmers NA. An application of economic choice experiments to a traditional land use - deer hunting and landscape change in the Scottish Highlands. J Environ Manage 1998; 52: 335-351.
71. Hanley N, Wright RE, Koop G. Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: rock climbing in Scotland. Environ Resour Econ 2002, 22: 449-466.
72. Blamey R, Bennett J, Louviere J, Morrison M. Green product choice. In The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Bennett J and Blamey R (eds). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 2001.
73. Louviere J, Hensher D, Swait J. Stated Choice Methods: Applications in Marketing, Transportation and Environmental Evaluation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2000.
74. Swait J, Adamowicz W. The effect of choice environment and task demands on consumer behaviour. Paper to 1996 Canadian Resource and Environmental Economics Study Group, Montreal, 1996.
75. Mazotta M, Opaluch J. Decision making when choices are complex. Land Econ 1995; 71: 500-515.
76. Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfield W. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Working Paper, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 1996.
77. Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Economics 1998; 7: 373-378.
78. Scott A, Vick S. Patients, doctors and contracts: An application of principal-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship. Scot J Polit Econ 1999; 46: 111-134.
79. Farrar S, Ryan M. Responses-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. Health Econ 1999; 8: 75-80.
80. Ryan M, Bate A. Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care. Appl Econ Lett 2001; 8: 59-63.
81. Ryan M, Wordsworth S. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to the level of attributes in discrete choice experiments. Scot J Polit Econ 2000; 47: 504-524.
82. Hausman J, Wise D. A conditional probit model for qualitative choice: discrete decisions recognising interdependence and heterogeneous preferences. Econometrica 1978; 42: 403-426.
83. McFadden D. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, Manski C, McFadden D (eds). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1981.
84. Train KE. Recreation demand models with taste differences across people. Land Econ 1998; 74: 230-239.
85. Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? J Environ Econ Manage 2001; 41: 179-192.
86. Banzhaf M, Johnson FR, Matthews K. Opt-out alternatives and anglers stated preferences: In The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Bennet J, Blamey R (eds). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 2001.
87. Johnson R, Banzhaf M, Desvousges W. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated preference approach. Health Econ 2000; 9: 295-317.
88. Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright RE, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agri Econ 1998; 49: 1-15.
89. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manage 1994; 26: 271-292.
90. Foster V, Mourato S. Behavioural consistency, statistical specification and validity in the contingent ranking method: evidence from a survey on the impacts of pesticide use in the UK. CSERGE Working Paper 97-09, 1997.
91. Ryan M, Reeves C, Entwistle V. Listening to respondents: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. Paper Presented to the Health Economic Study Group Meeting, University of East Anglia, 2002.
92. Ryan M. Establishing the convergent validity of willingness to pay and conjoint analysis for eliciting preferences. Paper presented at the Health Economists' Study Group meeting, University of Brunel, 1996.
93. Hanley N, Wright R, Alvarez-Farizo B. Valuing the benefits of water quality improvements using choice experiments. Report to Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2001.
94. Diamond P, Hausman JA. Contingent evaluation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 1994; 8: 19-43.
95. O'Reilly D, Hopkin J, Loomes G et al. The value of road safety: UK research on the valuation of preventing non-fatal injuries. J Transport Econ 1994; 28(1): 45-59.