IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v37y2005i14p1571-1583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eliciting preferences for collectively financed health programmes: the 'willingness to assign' approach

Author

Listed:
  • Joan Costa-Font
  • Joan Rovira

Abstract

Improving public involvement in health system decision making stands as a primary health policy goal. However, still limited guidance is available on how best to elicit preferences for health care programmes. This study examines a contingent choice technique to elicit preferences among health programmes, and named 'willingness to assign' (WTAS). WTAS reveals relative (monetary-based) values of a set of competing public programmes under a hypothetical healthcare budget assessment. Experimental evidence is reported from a deliberative empirical study valuing ten health programmes in the context of the Catalan Health Service. Evidence from this experimental study reveals that within the context of multiple programmes, preferences are internally more consistent and slightly less affected by 'preference reversals' as compared to values revealed from an adapted technique eliciting the willingness to pay (WTP) extra taxes. Another finding suggests that although programmes promoting health received the higher relative valuation, those promoting other health benefits were valued highly.

Suggested Citation

  • Joan Costa-Font & Joan Rovira, 2005. "Eliciting preferences for collectively financed health programmes: the 'willingness to assign' approach," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(14), pages 1571-1583.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:37:y:2005:i:14:p:1571-1583
    DOI: 10.1080/00036840500181695
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036840500181695
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00036840500181695?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donaldson, Cam, 1990. "Willingness to pay for publicly-provided goods : A Possible Measure of Benefit?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 103-118, June.
    2. Protière, Christel & Donaldson, Cam & Luchini, Stéphane & Paul Moatti, Jean & Shackley, Phil, 2004. "The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(7), pages 1257-1269, April.
    3. Nord, Erik & Richardson, Jeff & Street, Andrew & Kuhse, Helga & Singer, Peter, 1995. "Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: An Australian survey of health issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1429-1437, November.
    4. Paul Dolan & Jan Abel Olsen & Paul Menzel & Jeff Richardson, 2003. "An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(7), pages 545-551, July.
    5. Phil Shackley & Simon Dixon, 2000. "Using contingent valuation to elicit public preferences for water fluoridation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 777-787.
    6. M. R. Bhatia & J. A. Fox-Rushby, 2003. "Validity of Willingness to Pay: hypothetical versus actual payment," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(12), pages 737-740.
    7. Cookson, Richard, 2000. "Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 369-401, May.
    8. Mandy Ryan, 1997. "Should government fund assisted reproductive techniques? A study using willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(7), pages 841-849.
    9. Shackley, Phil & Donaldson, Cam, 2002. "Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care?: New evidence from using a 'marginal' approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 971-991, November.
    10. M. Common & I. Reid & R. Blamey, 1997. "Do existence values for cost benefit analysis exist?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 225-238, March.
    11. Cookson, Richard & Dolan, Paul, 1999. "Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 63-74, September.
    12. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Van Merode, 2004. "Willingness and ability of Bulgarian consumers to pay for improved public health care services," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(10), pages 1117-1130.
    13. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam, 1998. "Helicopters, hearts and hips: Using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-12, January.
    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. Erik Nord & Jose Luis Pinto & Jeff Richardson & Paul Menzel & Peter Ubel, 1999. "Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 25-39, February.
    2. Zigante, Valentina, 2011. "Assessing welfare effects of the European Choice Agenda: the case of health care in the United Kingdom," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 53449, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Valentina Zigante, 2011. "Assessing Welfare Effects of the European Choice Agenda: The case of health care in the United Kingdom," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 35, European Institute, LSE.
    4. Meliyanni Johar & Denzil G. Fiebig & Marion Haas & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "Using repeated choice experiments to evaluate the impact of policy changes on cervical screening," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1845-1855, May.
    5. Costa -Font, Joan & Forns, Joan Rovira & Sato, Azusa, 2015. "Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 182-190.
    6. Ozdemir, Semra & Johnson, F. Reed & Whittington, Dale, 2016. "Ideology, public goods and welfare valuation: An experiment on allocating government budgets," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 61-72.
    7. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni & Anna Maria Pinna, 2010. "Public versus private demand for covering long-term care expenditures," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(28), pages 3651-3668.
    8. Tania Stafinski & Devidas Menon & Deborah Marshall & Timothy Caulfield, 2011. "Societal Values in the Allocation of Healthcare Resources," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 207-225, December.
    9. Valentina Zigante, 2011. "Assessing Welfare Effects of the European Choice Agenda: The case of health care in the United Kingdom," Europe in Question Discussion Paper Series of the London School of Economics (LEQs) 5, London School of Economics / European Institute.

    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. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni & Anna Maria Pinna, 2010. "Public versus private demand for covering long-term care expenditures," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(28), pages 3651-3668.
    2. Leguizamon, Susane & Christafore, David, 2014. "Racial Differences in Willingness to Pay for Hospital Access," MPRA Paper 55926, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. van der Star, Sanne M. & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Individual responsibility and health-risk behaviour: A contingent valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 300-311, August.
    4. Costa -Font, Joan & Forns, Joan Rovira & Sato, Azusa, 2015. "Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 182-190.
    5. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    6. Desser, Arna S., 2013. "Prioritizing treatment of rare diseases: A survey of preferences of Norwegian doctors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 56-62.
    7. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    8. Shah, Koonal K., 2009. "Severity of illness and priority setting in healthcare: A review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 77-84, December.
    9. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    10. Phil Shackley & Cam Donaldson, 2000. "Willingness to pay for publicly-financed health care: how should we use the numbers?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(15), pages 2015-2021.
    11. Victoor, Aafke & Hansen, Johan & van den Akker-van Marle, M. Elske & van den Berg, Bernard & van den Hout, Wilbert B. & de Jong, Judith D., 2014. "Choosing your health insurance package: A method for measuring the public's preferences for changes in the national health insurance plan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 257-265.
    12. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2005. "Implicit versus explicit ranking: On inferring ordinal preferences for health care programmes based on differences in willingness-to-pay," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 990-996, September.
    13. Annemieke De Ridder & Diana De Graeve, 2005. "Order bias in estimates of willingness to pay for drugs to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(2), pages 146-151, June.
    14. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    15. Abellán Perpiñán, José Mª & Sánchez Martínez,Fernando I. & Martínez Pérez, Jorge E., 2007. "La medición del bienestar social relacionado con la salud/The Measurement of the Health Related Social Welfare," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 25, pages 927-950, Diciembre.
    16. Jeannette Winkelhage & Adele Diederich, 2012. "The Relevance of Personal Characteristics in Allocating Health Care Resources—Controversial Preferences of Laypersons with Different Educational Backgrounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, January.
    17. Karine Lamiraud & Robert Oxoby & Cam Donaldson, 2015. "Incremental willingness to pay," Working Papers hal-01205938, HAL.
    18. Jennifer Whitty & Emily Lancsar & Kylie Rixon & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(4), pages 365-386, December.
    19. Lamiraud, Karine & Oxoby, Robert & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "Reference Dependence and Incremental WTP," ESSEC Working Papers WP1609, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    20. Phil Shackley & Simon Dixon, 2014. "The Random Card Sort Method And Respondent Certainty In Contingent Valuation: An Exploratory Investigation Of Range Bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(10), pages 1213-1223, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:applec:v:37:y:2005:i:14:p:1571-1583. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.