IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/nasm04/406.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Messy Data Modelling in Health Care Contingent Valuation Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Ana Odejar
  • Kostas Mavromaras
  • Mandy Ryan

Abstract

This study addresses the complexity in modeling contingent valuation surveys with true zeros and non-ignorable missing responses including “don’t knows†and protest responses. An endogenous switching tobit model is specified to simultaneously estimate the parameters of the latent willingness to pay (WTP) decision variable and the latent true WTP level. A Bayesian technique is developed using MCMC methods data augmentation and Metropolis Hastings algorithm with Gibbs sampling for estimating the endogenous switching tobit model. The Bayesian approach presented here is useful even for finite sample size and for models with relatively flat likelihood like sample selection models for which convergence is a problem or even if convergence is achieved correlation of the latent random errors are outside the (-1,1) range. The proposed methodology is applied to a single-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation model using British Eurowill data on evaluating cancer health care program. Results in this study reveal that the interview interest scores for the unresolved or missing cases are substantially high and not far from scores of “yes†respondents. The pattern in the values of socio-economic and health related variables shows that these unresolved cases are not missing completely at random so that they may actually contain valuable information at least on the willingness decision process of respondents. Inclusion of these unresolved cases is essential to modelling WTP decision and true WTP level as reflected in the higher sum of log conditional predictive ordinate(SLCPO) goodness-of-fit criterion for a cross-validation sample and higher covariance between the latent random errors of the latent self-selection or WTP decision variable and the true WTP level model. The positive covariance and correlation of the latent random errors may explain why the true WTP levels in DC contingent valuation studies are oftentimes overestimated. The model presented in this paper may also be applied to double bounded dichotomous choice models with slight modification.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Ana Odejar & Kostas Mavromaras & Mandy Ryan, 2004. "Messy Data Modelling in Health Care Contingent Valuation Studies," Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings 406, Econometric Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecm:nasm04:406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.org/esNASM04/up.24558.1075493290.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. 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.
    3. Elisabetta Strazzera & Riccardo Scarpa & Pinuccia Calia & Guy Garrod & Kenneth Willis, 2003. "Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 133-138.
    4. Cam Donaldson & Andrew Jones & Tracy Mapp & Jan Abel Olson, 1998. "Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 667-677.
    5. Charlier, Erwin & Melenberg, Bertrand & van Soest, Arthur, 2001. "An analysis of housing expenditure using semiparametric models and panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 71-107, March.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    7. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
    8. Horowitz, Joel L. & Manski, Charles F., 1998. "Censoring of outcomes and regressors due to survey nonresponse: Identification and estimation using weights and imputations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 37-58, May.
    9. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    10. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Chib, Siddhartha & Hamilton, Barton H., 2000. "Bayesian analysis of cross-section and clustered data treatment models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 25-50, July.
    12. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 287-296, July.
    13. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Syme, Geoffrey J., 2000. "Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 251-265, May.
    14. Mark L. Messonnier & John C. Bergstrom & Christopher M. Cornwell & R. Jeff Teasley & H. Ken Cordell, 2000. "Survey Response-Related Biases in Contingent Valuation: Concepts, Remedies, and Empirical Application to Valuing Aquatic Plant Management," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 438-450.
    15. James A. Brox & Ramesh C. Kumar & Kenneth R. Stollery, 2003. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Quality in the Presence of Item Nonresponse Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 414-428.
    16. Kazumitsu Nawata & Michael McAleer, 2001. "Size Characteristics Of Tests For Sample Selection Bias: A Monte Carlo Comparison And Empirical Example," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 105-112.
    17. Begona Alvarez-Farizo, 1999. "Estimating the Benefits of Agri-environmental Policy: Econometric Issues in Open-ended Contingent Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 23-43.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sun, Chuanwang & Yuan, Xiang & Yao, Xin, 2016. "Social acceptance towards the air pollution in China: Evidence from public's willingness to pay for smog mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 313-324.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yen, Steven T. & Bowker, James Michael & Newman, David H., 2008. "Modeling Willingness to Pay for Land Conservation Easements: Treatment of Zero and Protest Bids and Application and Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 1-19, April.
    4. Collins, Alan R. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2007. "Protest Adjustments in the Valuation of Watershed Restoration Using Payment Card Data," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Mark Pennington & Manuel Gomes & Cam Donaldson, 2017. "Handling Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 623-634, August.
    6. Pablo Castellanos & Jaume García & José Manuel Sánchez, 2011. "The Willingness to Pay to Keep a Football Club in a City: How Important are the Methodological Issues?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(4), pages 464-486, August.
    7. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2018. "Inconvenience cost of mobile communication failure: The case of South Korea," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 241-252.
    8. William Fonta & Hyacinth Ichoku & Kanayo Ogujiuba, 2010. "Estimating willingness to pay with the stochastic payment card design: further evidence from rural Cameroon," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 179-193, April.
    9. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    10. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Discussion Paper 1992-7, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    12. Takashi Yamagata & Chris Orme, 2005. "On Testing Sample Selection Bias Under the Multicollinearity Problem," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 467-481.
    13. Martin Huber, 2012. "Identification of Average Treatment Effects in Social Experiments Under Alternative Forms of Attrition," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 37(3), pages 443-474, June.
    14. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    15. Miguel Ángel Tobarra-González, 2015. "A new recoding method for treating protest responses in contingent valuation studies using travel cost data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(8), pages 1479-1489, August.
    16. Brownstone, David, 1997. "Multiple Imputation Methodology for Missing Data, Non-Random Response, and Panel Attrition," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2zd6w6hh, University of California Transportation Center.
    17. María Xosé Vázquez & Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2006. "Economic evaluation of health effects with preference imprecision," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 403-417, April.
    18. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    19. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    20. Salvador Saz-Salazar & Miguel García-Rubio & Francisco González-Gómez & Andrés Picazo-Tadeo, 2016. "Managing Water Resources Under Conditions of Scarcity: On Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Improving Water Supply Infrastructure," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(5), pages 1723-1738, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    non-ignorable missing values; single-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation studies; Markov chain Monte Carlo methods;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C34 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ecm:nasm04:406. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    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.