A utility-theoretic approach to the aggregation of willingness to pay measured in decomposed scenarios: Development and empirical test

Health Economics

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 345-361

  Hammerschmidt, Thomas ^a,b   Zeitler, Hans Peter ^a   Leidl, Reiner ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ULM   (Germany)

^b NONE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Cost benefit analysis; Sub additivity; Utility theory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DIABETES MELLITUS; DIABETIC FOOT; DIABETIC NEUROPATHY; DIABETIC RETINOPATHY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; VALIDATION PROCESS;

AGED; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; GERMANY; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 1842628908     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.835     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group). Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998; 352: 837-853.
2. UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group). Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. B M J 1998; 317: 703-713.
3. O'Brien B, Novosel S, Torrance G, Streiner D. Assessing the economic value of a new antidepressant. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8: 34-45.
4. Dranitsaris G. A pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of using willingness to pay as a measure of value in cancer supportive care: an assessment of amistofine cytoprotection. Supportive Care Cancer 1997; 5: 489-499.
5. Luchini S, Protière C, Moatti J-P. Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care. Health Econ 2003; 12: 51-64.
6. Mullin PA, Lohr KN, Bresnahan BW, McNulty P. Applying cognitive design principles to formatting HRQOL instruments. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 13-27.
7. Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Some limits to our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 1956; 63: 81-97.
8. Glassman RB. Hypothesized neural dynamics of working memory. Brain Res Bull 1999; 50: 77-93.
9. 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: 135-143.
10. Diamond PA, Hausman JA. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 1994; 8: 45-64.
11. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999; 47: 97-123.
12. Berwick DM, Weinstein MC. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Med Care 1985; 23: 881-893.
13. Tolley G, Kenkel D, Fabian R (eds). Valuing Health for Policy: An Economic Approach. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1994.
14. Jakobsson K, Dragun A. Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 1996.
15. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manage 1992; 22: 57-70.
16. Randall A, Hoehn JP. Embedding in market demand systems. J Environ Econ and Manage 1996; 30: 369-380.
17. Johansson P-O. Evaluating Health Risks. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1995.
18. Johannesson M. A note on the relationship between ex-ante and expected willingness to pay for health care. Soc Sci Med 1996; 42: 305-311.
19. Klose T. A utility-theoretic model for QALYs and willingness to pay. Health Econ 2003; 12: 17-31.
20. Evans WN, Viscusi WK. Estimations of state-dependent utility functions using survey data. Rev Econ Stat 1991; 73: 94-104.
21. Sloan FA, Viscusi WK, Chesson HW, Conover CJ, Whetten-Gold stein K. Alternative approaches to valuing intangible health losses: the evidence for multiple sclerosis. J Health Econ 1998; 17: 475-497.
22. Viscusi WK, Evans WN. Utility functions that depend on health status: estimates and economic implications. Am Econ Rev 1990; 80: 353-374.
23. Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1993.
24. Matthews DR. The natural history of diabetes-related complications: the UKPDS experience. Diabetes Obesity Metabol 1999; 1(Suppl. 2): S7-S13.
25. Ohkubo Y, Kishikawa H, Araki E et al. Intensive insulin therapy prevents the progression of diabetic microvascular complications in Japanese patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a randomized prospective 6-year study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1995: 28: 103-117.
26. Franklin GM, Kahn LB, Baxter J, Marshall JA, Hamman RF. Sensory neuropathy in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Am J Epidemiol 19990; 131: 633-643.
27. Young MJ, Boulton AJM, Macleod AF, Williams DRR, Sonksen PH. A multicentre study of the prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the United Kingdom hospital clinic population. Diabetologica 1993; 36: 150-154.
28. Larsson J, Apelqvist J, Agardh C-D, Stenstrom A. Decreasing incidence of major amputation in diabetic patients: a consequence of a multidisciplinary foot care team approach. Diabetic Med 1995; 12: 770-776.
29. Litzelman DK, Slemenda CW, Langefeld CD et al. Reduction of lower extremity clinical abnormalities in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Ann Int Med 1993; 119: 36-41.
30. Sanders LJ. Diabetes mellitus. Prevention of amputation. J Am Podiatric Med Assoc 1994; 84: 322-328.
31. Beck JH. An experimental test of preferences for the distribution of income and individual risk aversion. Eastern Econ J 1994; 20: 131-145.
32. Kroll Y, Leshno M, Levy H, Spector Y. Increasing risk, decreasing absolute risk aversion and diversification. J Math Econ 1995; 24: 537-556.
33. Mas-Collel A, Whinston MD, Green JR. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1995.
34. Dawson-Saunders B, Trapp R. Basic & Clinical Biostatistics. Appleton&Lange: Norwalk, 1994.
35. Donaldson C, Shackley P. Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 699-707.
36. Muller A, Reutzel TJ. Willingness to pay for reduction in fatality risk: an exploratory survey. Am J Public Health 1984; 74: 808-812.
37. Phillips KA, Homan RK, Luft HS et al. Willingness to pay for poison control centers. J Health Econ 1997; 19: 343-357.
38. Dubourg WR, Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G. Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. J Risk Uncertainty 1994; 9: 115-133.
39. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Report of the NOAA-Panel on contingent valuation. Fed Reg 1993; 58: 4601-4614.
40. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK, Freeman PR. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. J Health Econ 2001; 20: 441-457.