"If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question". Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchoring

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 873-884

  Schwarzinger, Michaël ^a,b   Carrat, Fabrice ^b   Luchini, Stéphane ^c  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INSERM   (France)

^c CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Double bounded dichotomous choice; Framing effects; Influenza; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; INFLUENZA; MODELING; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; FAMILY DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INFLUENZA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; SPOUSE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; FRANCE; HUMANS; INFLUENZA, HUMAN; MALE; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PROXY; SPOUSES;

EID: 70349234450     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Abdelbasit K., and Plackett R. Experimental design for binary data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 78 381 (1983) 90-98
2. Alberini A. Efficiency vs bias of willingness to pay estimates: Bivariate and interval models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 (1995) 169-180
3. Alberini A. Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound, and bivariate models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 3 (1995) 287-306
4. Alberini A., Kanninen B., and Carson R. Modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice contingent valuation data. Land Economics 73 (1997) 309-324
5. Aprahamian F., Chanel O., and Luchini S. Modeling starting point bias and unobserved heterogeneity in contingent valuation surveys: an application to air pollution. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89 2 (2007) 533-547
6. Aprahamian F., Chanel O., and Luchini S. Heterogeneous anchoring and the shift effect in iterative valuation questions. Resource and Energy Economics 30 (2008) 12-20
7. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H., 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation, Technical Report 58 (10), 1601-1614.
8. Bala M., Wood L., Zarkin G., Norton E., Gafni A., and O'Brien B. Valuing outcomes in health care: a comparison of willingness to pay and quality-adjusted life-years. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 51 (1998) 667-676
9. In: Bateman I., and Willis K. (Eds). Valuing environmental preferences: theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries (1999), Oxford University Press, New York
10. Beattie J., Covey J., Dolan P., Hopkins L., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Pidgeon N., Robinson A., and Spencer A. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: Part 1. Caveat investigator. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17 (1998) 5-25
11. Bishop R., and Heberlein T. Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased?. American Journal Agricultural Economics 61 (1979) 926-930
12. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M., Yokoyama K., and 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
13. Boyle K., Bishop R., and Welsh M. Starting point bias in contingent valuation bidding games. Land Economics 61 (1985) 188-194
14. Boyle K., Johnson F., and McCollum D. Anchoring and adjustment in single-bounded, contingent-valuation questions. American Journal Agricultural Economics 79 (1997) 1495-1500
15. Boyle K., MacDonald H., Cheng H., and McCollum D. Bid design and yea saying in single-bounded, dichotomous-choice questions. Land Economics 74 1 (1998) 49-64
16. Brazier J., Akehurst R., Brennan A., Dolan P., Claxton K., McCabe C., Sculpher M., and Tsuchyia A. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?. Applied health economics and health policy 4 4 (2005) 201-208
17. Cameron T., and Hupper D. Referendum contingent valuation estimates: Sensitivity to the assignment of offered values. Journal of the American Statistical Association 84 416 (1991) 910-918
18. Cameron T., and Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27 (1994) 218-234
19. Carrat F., Sahler C., Le Galés C., Schwarzinger M., Nicolas M., and Bungener M. How much patients are willing to pay for an earlier alleviation of influenza?. In: Osterhaus A., Cox N., and Hampson A. (Eds). Options for the Control of Influenza IV (2001), Elsevier Science 67-72
20. Carrat F., Sahler C., Rogez S., Leruez-Ville M., Freymuth F., Le Gales C., Bungener M., Housset B., Nicolas M., and Rouzioux C. Influenza burden of illness: estimates from a national prospective survey of household contacts in France. Archives of Internal Medicine 162 (2002) 1842-1848
21. Carson R., and Groves T. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 37 1 (2007) 181-210
22. Carthy T., Chilton S., Covey J., Hopkins L., Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Pidgeon N., and Spencer A. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: Part 2. The CV/SG "chained" approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17 (1998) 187-213
23. Cassileth B., Lusk E., Strouse T., Miller D., Brown L., Cross P., and Tenaglia A. Psychosocial status in chronic illness. a comparative analysis of six diagnostic groups. New England Journal of Medicine 311 8 (1984) 506-511
24. Chapman G., and Johnson E. The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 7 (1994) 232-242
25. Chiu L., Tang K., Liu Y., Shyu W., and Chang T. Willingness of families caring for victims of dementia to pay for nursing home care: results of a pilot study in Taiwan. Journal of Management in Medicine 12 6 (1998) 349-360
26. Clarke P. Valuing the benefits of mobile mammographic screening units using the contingent valuation method. Applied Economics 32 (2000) 1647-1655
27. Cooper J., and Loomis J. Sensitivity of willingness-to-pay estimates to bid design in dichotomous choice contingent valuation models. Land Economics 68 2 (1992) 211-224
28. Cooper N., Sutton A., Abrams K., Wailoo A., Turner D., and Nicholson K. Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in treatment and prevention of influenza a and b: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal 326 7401 (2003) 1235-1241
29. Dalmau-Matarrodona E. Alternative approaches to obtain optimal bid values in contingent valuation studies and to model protest zeros. estimating the determinants of individuals' willingness to pay for home care services in day case surgery. Health Economics 10 2 (2001) 101-118
30. Damschroder L., Zikmund-Fisher B., and Ubel P. The impact of considering adaptation in health state valuation. Social Sciences & Medicine 61 2 (2005) 267-277
31. Dawson N., Singer M., Lenert L., Patterson M., Sami S., Gonsenhouser I., Lindstrom H., Smyth K., Barber M., and Whitehouse P. Health state valuation in mild to moderate cognitive impairment: feasibility of computer-based, direct patient utility assessment. Medical Decision Making 28 2 (2008) 220-232
32. Dolan P. Whose preferences count?. Medical Decision Making 19 4 (1999) 482-486
33. Flachaire E., Hollard G., and Luchini S. Heterogeneous anchoring in dichotomous choice valuation framework. Louvain Economic Review 73 4 (2007) 369-384
34. Ford I., Torsney B., and Wu C. The use of a canonical form in the construction of locally optimal designs for non-linear problems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 54 2 (1992) 569-583 Series B (Methodological)
35. Foreit J., and Foreit K. The reliability and validity of willingness to pay surveys for reproductive health pricing decisions in developing countries. Health Policy 63 (2003) 37-47
36. Frew E., Whynes D., and Wolstenholme J. Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Medical Decision Making 23 (2003) 150-159
37. Frykblom P., and Shogren J. An experimental testing of anchoring effects in discrete choice questions. Environmental and Resource Economics 16 (2000) 329-341
38. Green D., Jacowitz K.E., Kahneman D., and McFadden D. Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods. Resource and Energy Economics 20 (1998) 85-116
39. Haab T. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a "dichotomous choice with follow-up" questionnaire: a comment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 35 (1998) 190-194
40. Hanemann M., Loomis J., and Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73 4 (1991) 1255-1263
41. Hanemann M.W. Some issues in continuous and discrete response contingent valuation studies. Northeast Journal of Agricultural Economics 14 (1985) 5-13
42. Hanemann M.W., and Kanninen B.J. Statistical analysis of discrete response CV data. Valuing Environmental Preferences-Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EC and Developing Countries (1999), Ian Bateman and Ken G. Willis, Oxford
43. Hanley N., Ryan M., and Wright R. Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics. Health Economics 12 (2003) 3-16
44. Herriges J.A., and Shogren J.F. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30 (1996) 112-131
45. Holmes T., and Boyle K. Dynamic learning and context-dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics 81 (2005) 114-126
46. Jones-Lee M. The Economics of Safety and Physical Risk (1989), Basil Blackwell, Oxford
47. Jones-Lee M. Altruism and the value of other people's safety. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4 (1992) 213-219
48. Jones-Lee M. Paternalistic altruism and the value of statistical life. The Economic Journal 102 (1992) 80-90
49. Kang, H., 2006. Essays on methodologies in contingent valuation and the sustainable management of common pool resources. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University. Timothy Haab advisor.
50. Kanninen B. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28 (1995) 114-125
51. Kanninen B. Design of sequential experiments for contingent valuation studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25 (1995) S-1-S-11
52. Kennedy C. Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation: radon-induced lung cancer prevention. Health Economics 11 (2002) 585-598
53. Lenert L., Ziegler J., Lee T., Sommi R., and Mahmoud R. Differences in health values among patients, family members, and providers for outcomes in schizophrenia. Medical Care 38 10 (2000) 1011-1021
54. Liljas B., and Blumenschein K. On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies. Health Policy 52 (2000) 53-70
55. Liu J., Hammitt J., Wang J., and Liu J. Mother's willingness to pay for her own and her child's health: a contingent valuation study in Taiwan. Health Economics 9 4 (2000) 319-326
56. McLeod D., and Bergland O. Willingness-to-pay estimates using the double-bounded dichotomous-choice contingent valuation format: a test for validity and precision in a Bayesian framework. Land Economics 75 (1999) 115-125
57. Minkin S. Optimal designs for binary data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 82 400 (1987) 1098-1103
58. Mulvaney-Day N. Using willingness to pay to measure family members' preferences in mental health. The Journal of Mental Health Policy Economics 8 (2005) 71-81
59. Mussweiler T. Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review 110 (2003) 472-489
60. Nyquist H. Optimal designs of discrete response experiments in contingent valuation studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics 74 3 (1992) 559-563
61. Olsen J., and Smith R. Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care. Health Economics 10 (2001) 39-52
62. Onwujekwe O., Chima R., Shu E., Nwagbo D., and Okonkwo P. Hypothetical and actual willingness to pay for insecticide-treated nets in five Nigerian communities. Tropical Medicine and International Health 6 (2001) 545-553
63. Sach T., Whynes D., O'Neill C., O'Donoghue G., and Archbold S. Willingness-to-pay for pediatric cochlear implantation. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 68 1 (2004) 91-99
64. Saigal S., Stoskopf B., Feeny D., Furlong W., Burrows E., Rosenbaum P., and Hoult L. Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents. The Journal of American Medical Association 281 21 (1999) 1991-1997
65. Scarpa R., and Bateman I. Efficiency gains afforded by improved bid design versus follow-up valuation questions in discrete-choice CV studies. Land Economics 76 (2000) 299-311
66. Schwarzinger M., Lacombe K., and Carrat F. Review of economic evaluations of neuraminidase inhibitors to control influenza. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research 3 (2003) 89-101
67. Sitter R. Robust designs for binary data. Biometrics 48 4 (1992) 1145-1155
68. Slothuus U., and Brooks R. Willingness to pay in arthritis: a Danish contribution. Rheumatology 39 (2000) 791-799
69. Smith A., Thomas M., Brockman P., Kent J., and Nicholson K. Effects of influenza b virus infection on human performance. British Medical Journal 306 (1993) 760-761
70. Smith R. The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines?. Medical Decision Making 20 (2000) 194-206
71. Smith R. Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. Health Economics 12 (2003) 609-628
72. Sneeuw K., Aaronson N., Osoba D., Muller M., Hsu M.-A., Yung W., Brada M., and Newlands E. The use of significant others as proxy raters of the quality of life of patients with brain cancer. Medical Care 35 5 (1997) 490-506
73. Sorum P. Measuring patient preferences by willingness to pay to avoid: the case of acute otitis media. Medical Decision Making 19 1 (1999) 27-37
74. Tamim H., McCusker J., and Dendukuri N. Proxy reporting of quality of life using the eq-5d. Medical Care 40 12 (2002) 1186-1195
75. Todorov A., and Kirchner C. Bias in proxies' reports of disability: data from the national health interview survey on disability. American Journal of Public Health 90 (2000) 1248-1253
76. Tsevat J., Dawson N., Wu A., Lynn J., Soukup J., Cook E., Vidaillet H., and Phillips R. Health values of hospitalized patients 80 years or older. Help investigators. Hospitalized elderly longitudinal project. The Journal of American Medical Association 279 5 (1998) 371-375
77. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Judgments under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974) 1124-1131
78. Watson V., and Ryan M. Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation. Journal of Health Economics 26 3 (2007) 463-482
79. Whitehead J. Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Economics 78 (2002) 285-297
80. Yatchew A., and Griliches Z. Specification error in probit models. Review of Economics and Statistics 66 (1984) 134-139