This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Pecuniary compensation increases participation in screening for colorectal cancer

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Eline Aas (Institute of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The participation rate in medical screening programmes is typically below 100%, which means that not all potential health benefits are fully exploited. In this paper, the prospect of pecuniary compensation is tested as a method of increasing the participation rate. We propose a model explaining the individual's probability of participating in screening for colorectal cancer when he is offered pecuniary compensation, given that he did not participate when first invited. The participant's decision is based on both known and uncertain factors. The estimation is conducted in two steps, where a binary probit model is used in each. We find that pecuniary compensation increases the probability of participation, and that an individual's participation probability systematically varies with variables such as travel expenses, income, age, education level, expected benefit from the screening, use of health-care services, genetic predisposition and subjective health status. Using the results from the estimation, we predict changes in the participation rate for different levels of compensation and estimate the cost per additional individual screened. The cost per additional individual screened is 808, including 25 in compensation; this cost increases with the level of compensation. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.1371
File Format: text/html
File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
Download Restriction: no

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

Volume (Year): 18 (2009)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 337-354
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:3:p:337-354

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

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

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.:
  1. Célia Berchi & Jean-Marc Dupuis & Guy Launoy, 2006. "The reasons of general practitioners for promoting colorectal cancer mass screening in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 91-98, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Grossman, Michael, 1972. "On the Concept of Health Capital and the Demand for Health," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(2), pages 223-55, March-Apr. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Antonio Giuffrida & Hugh Gravelle, 1998. "Paying patients to comply: an economic analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 569-579.
  4. Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Jes Søgaard, 2001. "Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 617-634. [Downloadable!]
  5. Kalle Seip & Jon Strand, 1992. "Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: A contingent valuation study with real payment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(1), pages 91-106, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Jes Søggard & Ole Kronborg, 1998. "Colorectal cancer screening: efficiency and effectiveness," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 9-20.
  7. Byrne, Margaret M. & Thompson, Peter, 2001. "Screening and preventable illness," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 1077-1088, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Walker, Andrew & Whynes, David K., 1991. "Participation and screening programmes for colorectal cancer: More would be better?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 207-225, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Pauly, Mark V. & Held, Philip J, 1990. "Benign moral hazard and the cost-effectiveness analysis of insurance coverage," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 447-461, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? The yearly budget of IDEAS is exactly $0: it relies entirely on volunteer work.

This page was last updated on 2009-10-19.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.