Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments

Health Economics

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 389-401

  Ryan, Mandy ^a   Watson, Verity ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Discrete choice experiments; Payment card

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CHLAMYDIA; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH ECONOMICS; INCOME; MEDICAL FEE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOCIAL STATUS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ALGORITHMS; CHLAMYDIA; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIAL WELFARE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 67149134768     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1364     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M. 1994. Combining stated and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 271-292.
2. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J. 1998. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80: 64-75.
3. Albers W. 2001. Prominence theory as a tool to model boundedly rational decisions. In Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA; 297-318.
4. Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK, Freeman PR. 2001. Hypothetical versus actual willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. Journal of Health Economics 20: 441-457.
5. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Williams M, Swait J, Louviere J. 1996. A comparison of stated preference approaches to the measurement of environmental values. Ecological Economics 18: 243-253.
6. Boyle K, Johnston FR, McCollum D, Desvouges 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.
7. Bradley M. 1991. Users Manual for SPEED Version 2.1 Stated Preference Editor and Designer. Hague Consulting Group: The Hague.
8. Cameron TA. 1987. The impact of grouping coarseness alternative grouped-data regression models. Journal of Econometrics 35: 37-57.
9. Cameron TA, Huppert DD. 1991. Referendum contingent valuation estimates: sensitivity to the assignment of offered values. Journal of the American Statistical Association 86: 910-918.
10. Carlsson F, Martinsson P. 2001. Do hypothetical and actual willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41: 179-192.
11. Clarke PM. 2002. Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of healthcare. Health Economics 11: 117-127.
12. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. 2002. Applied Multiple Resgression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (3rd edn). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey.
13. Covey J, Smith RD. 2006. How common is the 'prominence effect'? Additional evidence to Whynes et al. Health Economics Letters 15: 205-210.
14. Cummings RG, Taylor LO. 1999. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. The American Economic Review 89: 649-665.
15. Diamond P, Hausman J. 1994. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 45-64.
16. Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A. 1998. Healthcare contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Economics 7: 313-326.
17. Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M. 1997. Willingness to pay for close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisted. Health Economics 6: 145-159.
18. Foster V, Mourato S. 2003. Elicitation format and sensitivity to scope: do contingent valuation and choice experiments give the same results? Environmental and Resource Economics 24: 141-160.
19. Frew EJ, Whynes DK, Wolstenholme JL. 2003. Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with openended and payment scale formats. Medical Decision Making 23: 150-159.
20. Hanemann WM. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 332-341.
21. Hanemann WM. 1994. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 19-43.
22. Hanley N, MacMillan D, Wright R, Bullock C, Simpson I, Parsisson D, Crabtree B. 1998. Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 49: 1-15.
23. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE. 2001. Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15: 435-462.
24. Hensher DA. 1997. Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. In Transport Economics: Selected Readings, Oum TH, Dodgson JS, Hensher DA et al. (eds). Harwood Academic in cooperation with the Korean Research Foundation for the 21st Century: Amsterdam.
25. Johannesson M, Johansson P-O, Lofgren K-G. 1997. On the value of changes in life expectancy: blips versus parametric changes. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 15: 221-239.
26. Jones-Lee M. 1989. The Economics of Safety and Physical Risk. Basil Blackwell: Oxford, UK.
27. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263-292.
28. Kealy M, Turner R. 1993. A test of equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75: 321-331.
29. Kennedy CA. 2002. Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation: radon induced lung cancer prevention. Health Economics 11: 585-598.
30. Lancaster K. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74: 132-157.
31. Liljas B, Blumenschein K. 2000. On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies. Health Policy 52: 53-70.
32. List JA, Gallet CA. 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environmental and Resource Economics 20: 241-254.
33. McFadden D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Frontiers in Econometrics, Zarembka P (ed.). Academic Press: New York.
34. Mitchell RC, Carson R. 1981. An experiment in determining willingness to pay for national water quality improvements. Draft Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
35. Onwujekwe O, Uzochukwu B. 2004. Stated and actual altruistic willingness to pay for insecticide-treated nets in Nigeria: validity of open-ended and binary with follow-up questions. Health Economics 13: 477-492.
36. Ready RC, Buzby JC, Hu D. 1996. Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates. Land Economics 72: 397-411.
37. Ryan M. 2004. A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Economics 13: 291-296.
38. Ryan M, Gerard K. 2003. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care: current practice and future prospects. Applied Health Economics and Policy Analysis 2: 55-64.
39. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya M. 2008. Using Discrete Choice to Value Health and Health Care. Springer: Berlin.
40. Ryan M, Scott DA, Donaldson C. 2004. Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. Journal of Health Economics 23: 237-258.
41. Small KA, Rosen HS. 1981. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 49: 105-130.
42. Smith RD. 2003. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Economics 12: 609-628.
43. Whynes DK, Philips Z, Frew E. 2005. Think of a number...any number? Health Economics Letters 14: 1191-1195.