Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: Application to health care

Health Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 51-64

  Luchini, Stéphane ^b   Protière, Christel ^a   Moatti, Jean Paul ^b  

^a INSTITUT PAOLI CALMETTES   (France)

^b AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Health care; Joint evaluation; Priorities setting; Separate evaluation; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CONTINGENT VALUATION; EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH SURVEY; HEART DISEASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AIR AMBULANCES; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; FINANCING, PERSONAL; FRANCE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HEART DISEASES; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 0037253275     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.703     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. 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.
2. Olsen J. Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method? Health Econ 1997; 6: 603.
3. O'Brien B, Gafni A. When do the 'dollars' make sense? Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 288.
4. Zeckhauser R. Procedures for valuing lives. Public Policy 1975; 23: 419.
5. Downing M, Ozuna T. Testing the reliability of the benefit function transfert approach. J Environ Econ Manage 1996; 30: 316-322.
6. Bazerman M, Loewenstein G, Blount White, S. Reversals of preference in allocation decisions: judging an alternative vs choosing among alternatives. Admin Sci Quart 1992; 37: 220-240.
7. Bazerman M, Schroth H, Shah P, Diekman K, Tenbrunsel A. The inconsistent role of comparison others and procedural justice in reactions to hypothetical job descriptions: implications for job acceptance decisions. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Process 1994; 60: 326-352.
8. Blount S, Bazerman M. Inconsistencies in valuing comparative payoffs: implications for bargaining and trade. J Econ Behavior Organization 1996; 891: 1-14.
9. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does process utility exist? Soc Sci Med 1997; 44(5): 699-707.
10. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Technical Report 58, 10, January 1993; 1601-1614.
11. Slovic P. The construction of preference. Am Psychol 1995; 50(5): 364-371.
12. Selart M. Structure compatibility and restructuring in judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Process 1996; 65(2): 106-116.
13. Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M. Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. Health Econ 1997; 6: 1.
14. 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: 1995.
15. Zellner A. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regessions and tests of aggregation bias. J Am Stat Assoc 1962; 57: 500-579.
16. Breusch T, Pagan A. The lm test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 1980; 47: 239-254.
17. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999; 47: 97-123.
18. Jones L. The Social Context of Health and Health Work. MacMillan: London, 1994.
19. Bourdieu P. La Distinction, Critique Sociale du Jugement. Minuit: Paris, 1979.
20. Jorgensen B, Syme G, Bishop B, Nancarrow B. Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Resource Econ 1999; 14: 131-150.
21. Dalmau-Matarrodona E. Alternative approaches to obtain optimal bid values in contingent valuation studies and to model protest zeros. estimating the determinants of individuals' willingness to pay for home care services in day care surgery. Health Econ 2001; 10(2): 101-118.
22. Dhrymes P. Limited dependent variables. In Handbook of Econometrics, vol. III. (Chapter 27). Griliches Z, Intriligator M (eds). North-Holland: Amsterdam, 1986.
23. Davidson R, MacKinnon J. Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. Oxford University Press: New York, 1993.
24. Munro A, Hanley N. Information, uncertainty, and contingent valuation. In Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, Bateman I, Willis K (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999; 258-279.
25. Hsee C. The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Process 1996; 67: 247-257.
26. Bazerman M, Moore D, Tenbrunsel A, Wade-Benzoni K, Blount S. Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation. J Econ. Behavior Organization 1999; 39: 41-58.
27. Kahneman D, Ritov I. Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. J Risk Uncert 1994; 9: 5-38.
28. Bateman I, Langford I, Rasbash J. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies. In Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries, Bateman I, Willis K (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999; 511-539.
29. Kahneman, D. Comments. In Valuiong Environmental Goods: A State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Cummings R, Brookshire D, Schulze W (eds). Rowman and Allenheld, 1986.
30. Hsee C. Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. J Behavioral Dec Making 1998; 11: 107-121.
31. Kartman B, Stalhammar N-O, Johannesson M. Valuarioon of health changes with the contingent valuation method: a test of scope and question order effect. Health Econ 1996; 5.