Willingness to pay for lives saved by helicopter emergency medical services

Prehospital Emergency Care

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 37-43

  Ringburg, Akkie N ^a   Buljac, Martina ^b   Stolk, Elly A ^b   Van Lieshout, Esther M M ^a   Van Beeck, F ^a   Patka, Peter ^a   Schipper, Inger B ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Helicopter emergency medical services; HEMS; Lives saved; Prehospital; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AIR AMBULANCES; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 61649110703     PISSN: 10903127     EISSN: 15450066     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10903120802472004     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Frankema SP, Steyerberg EW, Edwards MJ, van Vugt, AB. Comparison of current injury scales for survival chance estimation: an evaluation comparing the predictive performance of the ISS, NISS, and AP scores in a Dutch local trauma registration. J Trauma. 2005;58:596-604.
2. Gearhart PA, Wuerz R, Localio AR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of helicopter EMS for trauma patients. Ann Emerg Med. 1997;30:500-6.
3. Oppe S, De Charro FT. The effect of medical care by a helicopter trauma team on the probability of survival and the quality of life of hospitalised victims. Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33:129-38.
4. Thomas SH. Helicopter emergency medical services transport outcomes literature: annotated review of articles published 2000-2003. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2004;8:322-33.
5. Thomas SH, Biddinger PD. Helicopter trauma transport: an overview of recent outcomes and triage literature. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2003;16:153-8.
6. Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ. 1998;7:373-8.
7. Kjaer T. A review of the discrete choice experiment - with emphasis on its application in health care. Health Econ Papers. 2005;1.
8. Ryan M, Farrar S. Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000;320:1530-3.
9. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods. In: Analysis and Application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
10. Ringburg AN, van Ierland MCP, Froklage R, Patka P, Shipper IB. Assessing the need for HEMS assistance during nighttime. Dutch J Traumatol. 2008, 2:33-39.
11. Bazerman M, Moore D, Tenbrunsel A, et al. Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation. J Econ Behavior Org. 1999;39.
12. Slovic P. The construction of preference. Am Psychol. 1995;50:364-71.
13. Luchini S, Protiere C, Moatti JP. Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care. Health Econ. 2003;12:51-64.
14. Protiere C, Donaldson C, Luchini S, et al. The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:1257-69.
15. Olsen JA, Donaldson C. Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46:1-12.
16. de Blaeij A, Florax RJ, Rietveld P, Verhoef E. The value of statistical life in road safety: a meta-analysis. Accid Anal Prev. 2003;35:973-86.