Valuing health care using willingness to pay: A comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 237-258

  Ryan, Mandy ^a   Scott, David A ^b   Donaldson, Cam ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b Fourth Hurdle Consulting Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

D12; D60; Dichotomous choice methods; H00; I0; Payment card; Person trade off; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE;

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

AIR AMBULANCES; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CARDIAC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; NEOPLASMS; PROBABILITY; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SCOTLAND; SOCIAL WELFARE;

EID: 1542618050     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2003.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Arrow K.J., Solow R., Leamer E., Portney P., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register. 58:1993;4601-4614.
2. Bachman J.G., O'Malley P.M. Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: black-white differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly. 48:1984;491-509.
3. Baron J., Maxwell N. Cost of public goods affects willingness to pay for them. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making. 9:1996;173-183.
4. Bishop, R.C., Boyle, K.J., 1985. The Economic Value of Illinois Beach State Nature Reserve. Report to the Illinois Department of Conservation, Baumgartner Research Services, Madison, Heberlein.
5. Bishop R.C., Heberlein T.A. Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 61:1979;936-940.
6. Bishop R., Heberlein T., Kealy M. Contingent valuation of environmental assets: comparisons with a simulated market. Natural Resources Journal. 23:1983;619-633.
7. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M., Yokoyama K., Freeman P. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. Journal of Health Economics. 20:2001;441-457.
8. Bowker J., Stoll J. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 70:1988;373-381.
9. Boyle, K., Bishop, R., 1984. Economic Benefits Associated with Boating and Canoeing on the Lower Wisconsin River. Economic Issues No. 84, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
10. Boyle K.J., Desvouges W.H., Johnson F.R., Dunford R.W., Hudson S.P. An investigation of part-whole biases in contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 27:1994;64-83.
11. Boyle, K., Johnson, F., McCollum, D., Desvousges, W., Dunford, R., Hudson, S., 1993. Valuing Public Goods: Discrete Versus Continuous Contingent-Valuation Responses. Working Paper, Department of Resource Economics, University of Maine, Maine.
12. Brazier, J., Deverill, M., Green, C., Harper, R., Booth, A., 1999. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment 3 (9).
13. Cameron T.A. The impact of grouping coarseness alternative grouped-data regression models. Journal of Econometrics. 35:1987;37-57.
14. Cameron T.A., Huppert D.D. Referendum contingent valuation estimates: sensitivity to the assignment of offered values. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 86:1991;910-918.
15. Carson, R., Wright, J., Alberini, A., Carson, N., Flores, N., 1994. A Bibliography of Contingent Valuation Studies and Papers. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Inc., La Jolla, CA.
16. Cookson R. Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study. Journal of Health Economics. 19:2000;369-401.
17. Cooper J.C. Optimal bid selection for dichotomous choice contingent valuation survey. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 24:1993;25-40.
18. Couch A., Kenitson K. Yeasayers and naysayers: agreeing response set as a personality variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 60:1960;151-174.
19. Davis, R.K., 1964. The value of big game hunting in a private forest. In: Proceedings of the 29th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC.
20. Diamond P., Hausman J. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8:1994;45-64.
21. Diener A., O'Brien B., Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Economics. 7:1998;313-326.
22. Donaldson, C., 1999. 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.
23. Donaldson C., Shackley P. Does process utility exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Social Science and Medicine. 44:1997;699-707.
24. Donaldson C., Hundley V., Mapp T. Willingness to pay: a method for measuring preferences for maternity care? Birth. 25:1998;33-40.
25. Donaldson C., Shackley P., Abdalla M., Miedzybrodzka Z. Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Economics. 4:1995;439-452.
26. Donaldson C., Shackley P., Abdalla M. Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. Health Economics. 6:1997a;145-159.
27. Donaldson C., Thomas R., Torgerson D. Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay. Applied Economics. 29:1997b;79-84.
28. Frew E.J., Whynes D.K., Wolstenholme J.L. Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Medical Decision Making. 23:2003;150-159.
29. Gibb S., Donaldson C., Henshaw R. Assessing strength of preference for abortion method using willingness to pay. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 27:1998;30-36.
30. Green C. On the societal value of health care: what do we know about the person trade-off technique? Health Economics. 10:2001;233-243.
31. Greene, W.H., 1995. LIMDEP™ Version 7.0. Econometric Software Inc., NY.
32. Hanemann W. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 69:1984;332-341.
33. Hanemann W. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8:1994;19-43.
34. Hanemann M., Loomis J., Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 73:1991;1255-1263.
35. Holmes T.P., Kramer R.A. An independent sample of yea-saying and starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 29:1995;121-132.
36. Johannesson M., Johansson P.O., Kristrom B., Gerdtham U.G. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy - further results. Journal of Health Economics. 12:1993;95-108.
37. Johannesson M., Jonsson B., Borgquist L. Willingness to pay for antihyperintensive therapy - results of a Swedish pilot study. Journal of Health Economics. 10:1991;461-474.
38. Johnson, R.L., Bregenzer, N.S., Shelby, B., 1990. Contingent valuation question formats: dichotomous choice versus open-ended responses. In: Johnson, R.L., Johnson, G.V. (Eds.), Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory and Applications. Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 193-204.
39. Jones-Lee, M.W., 1989. The Value of Safety and Physical Risk. Oxford, Blackwell.
40. Kanninen B. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 28:1995;114-125.
41. Kealy M., Turner R. A test of equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 75:1993;321-331.
42. Kramer R.A., Mercer D.E. Valuing a global environmental good: U.S. residents' willingness to pay to protect tropical rain forests. Land Economics. 73:1997;196-210.
43. Kriström B. Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 79:1997;1013-1023.
44. Langford I., Bateman I., Langford H. A multilevel modelling approach to triple bounded dichotomous choice analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics. 7:1996;197-211.
45. McFadden D. Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 76:1994;689-708.
46. McFadden, D., Leonard, G., 1993. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. In: Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Cambridge Economics Inc., Cambridge, MA.
47. Mitchell, R.C., Carson, R.T., 1981. An Experiment in Determining Willingness to Pay for National Water Quality Improvements. Draft Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
48. Mitchell, R., Carson, R., 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
49. Neumann P.J., Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilisation: a pilot study using contingent valuation. Medical Care. 32:1994;686-699.
50. Nord E. The person-trade-off approach to valuing health care programs. Medical Decision Making. 15:1995;201-208.
51. Olsen J.A., Donaldson C. Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. Social Science and Medicine. 46:1998;1-12.
52. Prades J. Is the person trade-off a valid method for allocating health care resources? Health Economics. 6:1997;71-81.
53. Ready R.C., Buzby J.C., Hu D. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economics. 72:1996;397-411.
54. Ryan M. Using willingness to pay to assess the benefits of assisted reproductive techniques. Health Economics. 5:1996;543-558.
55. Ryan M. Should government fund assisted reproductive techniques? A pilot study using willingness to pay. Applied Economics. 29:1997;841-849.
56. Ryan M. Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay. Journal of Economic Psychology. 19:1998;179-204.
57. Ryan M., San Miguel F. Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology. 21:2000;305-317.
58. Ryan M., Ratcliffe J., Tucker J. Using willingness to pay to value alternative models of antenatal care. Social Science and Medicine. 44:1997;371-380.
59. Ryan, M., Scott, D., Donaldson, C., 1998. Econometric Issues Raised in the Analysis of Payment Scale and Closed-Ended Contingent Valuation Data Sets in Health Care. Paper Presented to Nordic Health Econometrics Workshop, Oslo.
60. Ryan, M., Scott, D.A., Reeves, C., Bate, A., van Teijlingen, E., Russell, E., Napper, M., Robb, C., 2001. Eliciting Public Preferences for Health Care: A Systematic Review of Techniques. Health Technology Assessment 5 (5).
61. Sellar C., Chavas J.P., Stoll J.R. Validation of empirical measures of welfare change: a comparison of nonmarket techniques. Land Economics. 61:1985;156-175.
62. Sen A. Internal consistency of choice. Econometrica. 61:1993;495-521.
63. Stewart J.M., O'Shea E., Donaldson C., Shackley P. Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care? Journal of Health Economics. 21:2003;585-599.
64. Ubel P.A., Loewenstein G., Scanlon D., Kamlet M. Value measurement in cost-utility analysis: explaining the discrepancy between rating scale and person trade-off elicitations. Health Policy. 43:1998;33-44.
65. Ubel P.A., Richardson J., Menzel P. Societal value, the person trade-off, and the dilemma of whose values to measure for cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Economics. 9:2000;127-136.
66. Wang H. Treatment of "don't know" responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 32:1997;219-232.