Decision makers' and scientists' opinion about contingent valuation and choice experiments for measuring willingness to pay in health care: Results from a survey in Germany

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 351-361

  Günther, Oliver H ^a   König, Hans Helmut ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Contingent valuation; Cost benefit analysis; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COSTS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; PATIENT TREATMENT; PROBABILITY;

CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CONTINGENT VALUATION; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

HEALTH CARE;

ARTICLE; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCIENTIST;

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; DATA COLLECTION; GERMANY; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; HEALTH SERVICES; HUMANS; LABORATORY PERSONNEL; MIDDLE AGED; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 33749120745     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462306051257     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1980.
2. Baron J, Greene J. Determinants of insensitivity to quantity on valuation of public goods: Contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability and prominence. J Exp Psychol. 1996;2:106-125.
3. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit und soziale Sicherung. Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung. 2004. Available at: http://www.bmgs.bund.de/deu/gra/ datenbanken/gkv/4504.cfm. Accessed August 2005.
4. Cookson R. Willingness to pay methods in health care: A sceptical view. Health Econ. 2003;12:891-894.
5. Converse JM, Presser S. Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1986.
6. Deutsche Koordinierungsstelle für Gesundheitswissenschaften. Who is who in public health. 2004. Available at: http://www.medsoz.uni-freiburg.de/ dkgw/whoiswho/recherche.htm. Accessed August 2005.
7. Drummond M, Jonsson B, Rutten F. The role of economic evaluation in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Health Policy. 1997;40:199-215.
8. European Observatory on Health Care. Health care systems in transition: Germany 2000. 2000. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/document/e68952.pdf. Accessed August 2005.
9. Fisher RJ. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J Consumer Res. 1993;20:303-315.
10. Gress S, Niebuhr D, Rothgang H, Wasem J. Criteria and procedures for determining benefit packages in health care. a comparative perspective. Health Policy. 2005;73:78-91.
11. Hair JF, Tatham R, Anderson R, Black W. Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1988.
12. Hanley N. Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy making. Environ Plan C. 2001;19:103-118.
13. Hanley N, Ryan M, Wright R. Estimating the monetary value of health care: Lessons from environmental economics. Health Econ. 2003;12:3-16.
14. Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy. 2000;52:179-192.
15. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 1999;47:97-123.
16. Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: Inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ. 2004;13:901-907.
17. 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;16:288-299.
18. Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: A review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health Care. Health Econ. 2001;10:39-52.
19. Ryan M. A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Econ. 2004;13:291-296.
20. Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. 'Threats' to and hopes for estimating benefits. Health Econ. 2005;14:609-619.
21. Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2:55-64.
22. Ryan M, San Miguel F. Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. Health Econ. 2003;12:295-307.
23. Ryan M, Skatun D. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ. 2004;13:397-402.
24. Wasem J, Hessel F, Kerim-Sade, C. Methods of comparative economic evaluations of therapies and for rational allocation of resources across sectors of health care systems - introduction, advantages, risks. Psychiatr Prax. 2001;28:S12-S20.