GET MORE, PAY MORE? An elaborate test of construct validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates obtained through contingent valuation

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 158-168

  Bobinac, Ana ^a   van Exel, N Job A ^a   Rutten, Frans F H ^a   Brouwer, Werner B F ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; QALY; Sensitivity to scale; Validity; Willingness to pay; WTP

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ESTIMATION METHOD; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTINGENT VALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EMPLOYMENT STATUS; FAMILY SIZE; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INCOME; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MARRIAGE; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ADULT; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; NETHERLANDS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84858072090     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: 18791646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.09.004     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Arrow K., Solow R., Leamer E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58:4601-4614.
2. Baker R., Currie G.R., Donaldson C. What needs to be done in contingent valuation: have xmissed the boat?. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2010, 5:113-121.
3. Bateman I.J., Brouwer R. Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions. A novel scope sensitivity test. Resource and Energy Economics 2006, 28:199-214.
4. Bateman I.J., Jones A.P. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to meta-analysis: expectation consistency in U.K. woodland recreation values. Land Economics 2003, 79:235-258.
5. Bhatia M.R., Fox-Rushby J.A. Validity of willingness to pay: hypothetical versus actual payment. Applied Economics Letters 2003, 10:737-740.
6. Blomquist G., Blumenschein K., Johannesson M. Eliciting willingness to pay without bias using follow-up certainty statements: comparisons between probably/definitely and a 10-point certainty scale. Environmental and Resource Economics 2009, 43:473-502.
7. Blumenschein K., Johannesson M., Yokoyama K.K., Freeman P.R. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. Journal of Health Economics 2001, 20:441-457.
8. Bobinac A., van Exel N.J.A., Brouwer W.B.F., Rutten F. Willingness to pay for a QALY: the individual perspective. Value in Health 2010, 13:1046-1055.
9. Bradford D.F. Benefit-cost analysis and demand curves for public goods. Kyklos 1972, 23:775-791.
10. Byrne M.M., O'Malley K., Suarez-Almazor M.E. Willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year in a study of knee osteoarthritis. Medical Decision Making 2005, 25:655-666.
11. Cameron A.T., Quiggin J. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1994, 27:218-234.
12. Carson R., Mitchell R. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 28:155-173.
13. CBS. (accessed 21.03.09). http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/cijfers/kerncijfers/default.htm.
14. Claxton K., Paulden M., Gravelle H., Brouwer W.B.F., Culyer A.J. Discounting and decision making in the economic evaluation of health care technologies. Health Economics 2011, 20:2-15.
15. Corso P., Hammitt J., Graham J. Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2001, 23:165-184.
16. Desvousges W.H., Johnson F.R., Dunford R.W., Boyle K.J., Hudson S.P., Wilson K.N. Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: tests of validity and reliability. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. 1993, 91-159. Amsterdam, North-Holland. J.A. Hausman (Ed.).
17. Donaldson C., Shackley P., Abdalla M., Miedzybrodzka Z. Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Economics 1995, 4:439-452.
18. Donaldson C., Shackley P., Abdalla M. Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. Health Economics 1997, 6:145-159.
19. Donaldson C., Baker R., Mason H., Jones-Lee M., Lancsar E., Wildman J., Bateman I., Loomes G., Robinson A., Sugden R., Pinto Prades J.L., Ryan M., Shackley P., Smith R. The social value of a QALY: raising the bar or barring the raise?. BMC Health Services Research 2011, 11:8.
20. Drummond M., Brixner D., Gold M., Kind P., McGuire A. Nord E and Consensus Development Group (2009), toward a consensus on the QALY. Value in Health 2009, 12:31-35.
21. Dubourg W.R., Jones-Lee M.W., Loomes G. Imprecise preferences and survey design in contingent valuation. Economica 1997, 64:681-702.
22. The EuroQol Group EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health related QoL. Health Policy 1999, 16:199-208.
23. Fisher A.C. The conceptual underpinnings of the contingent valuation method. The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources: Methodological Issues and Research Needs 1996, 19-37. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. D.J. Bjornstad, J.R. Kahn (Eds.).
24. Flores N., Carson R. The relationship between the income elasticities of demand and willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 33:287-295.
25. Frederick S., Fischhoff B. Scope insensitivity in elicited valuations. Risk, Decision and Policy 1998, 3:109-123.
26. Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Economics 2003, 12:1049-1060.
27. Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY: theoretical and methodological issues. Pharmacoeconomics 2005, 23:423-432.
28. Hammitt J.K., Graham J.D. Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 18:32-62.
29. Heberlein T.A., Wilson M.A., Bishop R.C., Schaeffer N.C. Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2005, 50:1-22.
30. Jakobsson K., Dragun J. Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species 1996, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Brookfield, US.
31. Johannesson M., Blomquist G.C., Blumenschein K., Johansson P., Liljas B., O'Conor R.M. Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 18:21-32.
32. Johnson R., Banzhaf M.R., Desvousges W.H. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Economics 2000, 9:295-317.
33. Jones-Lee M., Loomes G., Philips P. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation vs. standard gambles. Oxford Economic Papers 1995, 47:676-695.
34. Jorgensen B.S., Syme G.J., Smith L.M., Bishop B.J. Random error in willingness to pay measurement: a multiple indicators, latent variable approach to the reliability of contingent values. Journal of Economic Psychology 2004, 25:41-59.
35. Kahneman D., Ritov I., Schkade D. Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 19:203-235.
36. Kind P., Dolan P., Gudex C., Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 1998, 316:736-741.
37. King J.T., Tsevat J., Lave J.R., Roberts M.S. Willingness to pay for a Quality-Adjusted Life year: implications for societal health care resource allocation. Medical Decision Making 2005, 25:667-677.
38. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999, 47:97-123.
39. Lamers L.M., McDonnell J., Stalmeier P.F. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Economics 2006, 15:1121-1132.
40. Lienhoop N., MacMillan D. Valuing wilderness in Iceland: estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy 2007, 24:289-295.
41. MacMillan D., Hanley N., Lienhoop N. Contingent valuation: environmental polling or preference engine. Ecological Economics 2006, 60:299-307.
42. McFadden D., Leonard G. Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: methodologies for data collection and analysis. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment 1993, 91-159. Amsterdam, North-Holland. J.A. Hausman (Ed.).
43. NOAA Panel. (accessed 14.04.10). http://www.cbe.csueastbay.edu/~alima/courses/4306/articles/NOAA%25%2520on%25%2520contingent%25%2520valuation%25%25201993.pdf.
44. Nord E., Daniels N., Kamlet M. QALYs: some challenges. Value Health 2008, 12(Suppl. 1):10-15.
45. Norinder A., Krister H., Ulf P. Scope and scale insensitivities in a contingent valuation study of risk reductions. Health Policy 2001, 57:141-153.
46. Olsen J.A., Donaldson C. Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. Social Science and Medicine 1998, 46:1-12.
47. Olsen J.A., Donaldson C., Pereira J. The insensitivity of 'willingness-to-pay' to the size of the good: new evidence for health care. Journal of Economic Psychology 2004, 25:445-460.
48. Parkin D., Devlin N. Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost-utility analysis?. Health Economics 2006, 15:653-664.
49. Pinto-Prades J.L., Loomes G., Brey R. Trying to estimate a monetary value for the QALY. Journal of Health Economics 2009, 28:553-562.
50. Ryan M. A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Economics 2004, 13:291-296.
51. Shiroiwa T., Sung Y., Fukuda T., Lang H., Bae S., Tsutani K. International survey on willingness-to-pay (WTP) for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness?. Health Economics 2010, 4:422-437.
52. Smith R.D. The relative sensitivity of willingness-to-pay and time-trade-off to changes in health status: an empirical investigation. Health Economics 2001, 10:487-497.
53. Smith R.D. Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint. Journal of Health Economics 2005, 24:519-529.
54. Smith R.D. It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. Health Economics 2006, 15:281-293.
55. Smith R.D., Sach T.H. Contingent valuation: what needs to be done?. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2010, 5:91-111.
56. Tilling, C., Krol, M., Tsuchiya, A., Brazier, J., van Exel, J., Brouwer, W., 2009. Measuring the value of life: exploring a new method for deriving the monetary value of a QALY. University of Sheffield Working Paper 09-14, Sheffield University.
57. Van Exel N.J.A., Brouwer W.B.F., van den Berg B., Koopmanschap M.A. With a little help from an anchor: discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation. Journal of Socio-Economics 2006, 35:836-853.
58. Van Houtven G., Powers J., Jessup A., Yang J. Valuing avoided morbidity using meta-regression analysis: what can health status measures and QALYs tell us about WTP?. Health Economics 2006, 15:775-795.
59. Weinstein M. How much are Americans willing to pay for a Quality-Adjusted Life Year?. Medical Care 2008, 46:343-345.
60. Weinstein M., McGuire A., Torrance G. QALYs: the basics. Value Health 2009, 12(Suppl. 1):S5-S9.
61. Yeung R., Smith R.D., McGhee S.M. Willingness to pay and size of health benefit: an integrated model to test for 'sensitivity to scale'. Health Economics Letters 2003, 12:791-796.