IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i5p584-592.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Total Cost Information on Consumer Treatment Decisions: An Experimental Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Regina Kwon

    (Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA)

  • Larry A. Allen

    (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
    Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Laura D. Scherer

    (Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA)

  • Jocelyn S. Thompson

    (Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Madiha F. Abdel-Maksoud

    (Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Colleen K. McIlvennan

    (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
    Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Daniel D. Matlock

    (Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
    Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
    VA Eastern Colorado Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Denver, CO, USA)

Abstract

Background. Unrestrained use of expensive, high-risk interventions runs counter to the idea of a limited medical commons. Objective. To examine the effect of displaying the total first-year cost of implanting a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) on a hypothetical treatment decision and whether this effect differs when choosing for oneself versus for another person. Design. We conducted an online survey in February 2016. The survey described the clinical course of end-stage heart failure and the risks and benefits of an LVAD. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 scenarios, which varied by patient identity (oneself versus another person) and description of total cost. Measurements. This study measured acceptance of LVAD implantation. Reasoning and attitudes were secondarily explored. Results. We received 1211 valid responses. The mean age was 38.3 y (±12.8); 53.5% were female and 84.4% were white. Participants were more likely to accept an LVAD when shown the total cost (66.2% v. 58.0%, P = 0.003) or when choosing for another (68.0 % v. 56.4%, P

Suggested Citation

  • Regina Kwon & Larry A. Allen & Laura D. Scherer & Jocelyn S. Thompson & Madiha F. Abdel-Maksoud & Colleen K. McIlvennan & Daniel D. Matlock, 2018. "The Effect of Total Cost Information on Consumer Treatment Decisions: An Experimental Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(5), pages 584-592, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:5:p:584-592
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18773718
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18773718
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18773718?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Donald A. Redelmeier & Deva Thiruchelvam & Robert J. Tibshirani, 2022. "Testing for a Sweet Spot in Randomized Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 208-216, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.
    2. Philippe Polome & Anne van der Veen & Peter Geurts, 2006. "Is Referendum the Same as Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 174-188.
    3. Grigoriadis, Theocharis, 2017. "Religion, administration & public goods: Experimental evidence from Russia," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 42-60.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    6. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren, 2017. "Referenda Under Oath," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 479-504, July.
    7. Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2006. "Should We Trust Hypothetical Referenda? Test and Identification Problems," Working Papers in Economics 189, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised 24 Jan 2006.
    8. Champ, Patricia A. & Alberini, Anna & Correas, Ignacio, 2005. "Using contingent valuation to value a noxious weeds control program: the effects of including an unsure response category," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 47-60, October.
    9. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    11. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    12. Stephanie Simpson & Brid Gleeson Hanna, 2010. "Willingness to pay for a clear night sky: use of the contingent valuation method," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(11), pages 1095-1103.
    13. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    14. Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon B., 2013. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 137-147.
    15. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.
    16. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Wallace E. Oates & James N. Sanchirico, 2010. "Success and design of local referenda for land conservation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 769-798.
    17. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    18. Perni, Ángel & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: Validity and reliability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    19. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    20. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2016. "Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is," Monash Economics Working Papers 42-16, Monash University, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:5:p:584-592. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.