Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in mental health care in Ireland
The proportion of total health care expenditure devoted to mental health care in Ireland, at just below 7%, is low relative to other countries. There have been few studies that have examined the relationship between public preferences for different kinds of health care expenditure and priority setting as undertaken by policy-makers and governments. This paper examines citizen's rankings and willingness to pay for a community-based mental health care programme in Ireland relative to two other programmes: cancer and elderly care. Respondents rank cancer as the most important programme, followed by elderly care and then mental health care. The contingent valuation survey demonstrated that people are willing to make significant tax contributions to new community-based services for people with mental health problems, counteracting the view sometimes expressed that people do not care at all about mental health care provision. However, the survey also found that people tend to value additional spending on mental health care lower than cancer and elderly care programmes.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- 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.
- 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
1997-07, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
- Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326.
- Stéphane Luchini & Christel Protière & Jean-Paul Moatti, 2003. "Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 51-64.
- Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
- Jennifer Stewart & Eamon O'Shea & Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley, 2000.
"Do Ordering Effects Matter in Willingness-to-pay Studies of Health Care?,"
0046, National University of Ireland Galway, Department of Economics, revised 2000.
- Stewart, Jennifer M. & O'Shea, Eamon & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2002. "Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 585-599, July.
- 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.
- Eamon O’Shea & Jennifer Stewart & Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley, 2001. "Eliciting Preferences for Resource Allocation in Health Care," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 32(3), pages 217-238.
- Jan Abel Olsen & Richard D. Smith, 2001. "Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 39-52.
- Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:88:y:2008:i:2-3:p:359-370. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)or ()
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.