The Contingent Valuation Method in Health Care: An Economic Evaluation of Alzheimer's Disease
AbstractThe present work focuses on the choice of the elicitation technique within a contingent valuation (CV) framework. We simultaneously apply three different elicitation techniques to elicit willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for different programs against Alzheimer's disease. The WTP values are elicited by using the dichotomous choice approach, which is the standard procedure. However, giving respondents only a yes/no response alternative seems to result in overestimated WTP values. Therefore, we additionally apply the dissonance-minimizing format which screens respondents for their preferences and thus avoids possible yea-saying and protest answers against the payment vehicle. In addition, a modified version of the payment card is used, allowing respondents to express a level of voting certainty and to make less of a commitment. With our findings we modify existing guidelines on how to execute a CV study. We show that the Swiss population favors highly a program which improves the situation of informal caregivers and that a well-designed CV method is a suitable instrument for helping decision makers in the health care sector.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft in its series Diskussionsschriften with number dp0101.
Date of creation: Jan 2001
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Schanzeneckstr. 1, PF 8573, CH-3001 Bern
Phone: 0041 31 631 45 06
Fax: 41 31 631 37 83
Web page: http://www.vwi.unibe.ch/content/publikationen/index_eng.html
More information through EDIRC
contingent valuation (CV) method; willingness-to-pay (WTP); Alzheimer's disease (AD); elicitation technique;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
- C42 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Survey Methods
- C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
- H42 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Private Goods
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2001-06-22 (All new papers)
- NEP-HEA-2001-06-22 (Health Economics)
- NEP-REG-2001-06-22 (Regulation)
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.:
- Kip Viscusi, W. & Magat, Wesley A. & Huber, Joel, 1991. "Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk-risk and risk-dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 32-51, July.
- Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
- Zhongmin, Xu & Guodong, Cheng & Zhiqiang, Zhang & Zhiyong, Su & Loomis, John, 2003. "Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 345-358, March.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Silvia Glusstein-Gerber).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.