Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics

Contents:

Author Info

  • Nick Hanley

    (Economics Department, University of Glasgow, UK)

  • Mandy Ryan

    (Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK)

  • Robert Wright

    (Economics Department, University of Stirling, UK)

Abstract

In the recent past, considerable effort in health economics has been made on applying stated preference methods such as contingent valuation and choice experiments. Despite this increased use, there is still considerable scepticism concerning the value of these approaches. The application of contingent valuation in environmental economics has a long history and has been widely accepted. Whilst choice experiments were introduced to the environmental and health economics literature at a similar time, the wider acceptance of monetary measures of benefit in environmental economics has meant that they have also been more widely applied. The purpose of this paper is to identify some of the key issues and debates that have taken place in the environmental economics literature, summarise the state of the art with respect to these issues, and consider how health economists have addressed these issues. Important areas for future research in health economics are identified. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.763
File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

Volume (Year): 12 (2003)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 3-16

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:1:p:3-16

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

Related research

Keywords:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. A Diener & B O'Brien & A Gafni, 1997. "Health Care Contingent Valuation Studies: A review and classification of the literature," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada 1997-07, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
  2. Edward Balistreri & Gary McClelland & Gregory Poe & William Schulze, 2001. "Can Hypothetical Questions Reveal True Values? A Laboratory Comparison of Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Values with Auction Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(3), pages 275-292, March.
  3. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
  4. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
  5. Fox, John A. & Shogren, J. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Kliebenstein, James, 2003. "Cvm-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets," Staff General Research Papers, Iowa State University, Department of Economics 11935, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  6. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
  7. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
  8. Carson, Richard T & Groves, Theodore, 2010. "Incentive and Information Properties of Preference Questions," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, UC San Diego qt88d8644g, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  9. Nick Hanley & Carol A. Salt & Mike Wilson & Meara Culligan-Dunsmore, 2001. "Evaluating alternative "countermeasures" against food contamination resulting from nuclear accidents," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 92-109.
  10. Ian Bateman & Ian Langford & Naohito Nishikawa & Iain Lake, 2000. "The Axford Debate Revisited: A Case Study Illustrating Different Approaches to the Aggregation of Benefits Data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 291-302.
  11. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 2006. "Contingent Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, Elsevier, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 821-936 Elsevier.
  12. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
  13. Richard T. Carson & Nicholas E. Flores & Kerry M. Martin & Jennifer L. Wright, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 80-99.
  14. Bateman, Ian J, et al, 1997. "Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(441), pages 322-32, March.
  15. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
  16. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
  17. Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1978. "A Conditional Probit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 46(2), pages 403-26, March.
  18. Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1997. "Real And Hypothetical Willingness To Pay For Environmental Preservation: A Non-Experimental Comparison," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1-3), pages 123-137.
  19. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
  20. Brouwer, Roy, 2000. "Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 137-152, January.
  21. Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh & Phil Shackley, 1998. "Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 373-378.
  22. Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
  23. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
  24. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, N, 1994. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," MPRA Paper 38351, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  25. Nick Hanley & Jennifer Milne, . "Ethical Beliefs and Behaviour in Contingent Valuation," Working Papers Series, University of Stirling, Division of Economics e96/1, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
  26. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
  27. Marisa J. Mazzotta & James J. Opaluch, 1995. "Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner's Hypothesis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 71(4), pages 500-515.
  28. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
  29. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
  30. F. Reed Johnson & Melissa Ruby Banzhaf & William H. Desvousges, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 295-317.
  31. Scott, Anthony & Vick, Sandra, 1999. "Patients, Doctors and Contracts: An Application of Principal-Agent Theory to the Doctor-Patient Relationship," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 46(2), pages 111-34, May.
  32. John Hutton & Alan Maynard, 2000. "A nice challenge for health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 89-93.
  33. Shelley Farrar & Mandy Ryan, 1999. "Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 75-79.
  34. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Gary Koop, 2002. "Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(3), pages 449-466, July.
  35. Cam Donaldson & Ruth Thomas & David Torgerson, 1997. "Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 79-84.
  36. Nick Hanley, 2001. "Cost - benefit analysis and environmental policymaking," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 19(1), pages 103-118, February.
  37. Frykblom, Peter, 1997. "Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 275-287, November.
  38. Johannesson, Magnus & Jonsson, Bengt & Borgquist, Lars, 1991. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- results of a Swedish pilot study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 461-473.
  39. Ryan, Mandy & Wordsworth, Sarah, 2000. "Sensitivity of Willingness to Pay Estimates to the Level of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(5), pages 504-24, November.
  40. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15.
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 in new window

Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:1:p:3-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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