IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v88y2008i2-3p359-370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in mental health care in Ireland

Author

Listed:
  • O'Shea, Eamon
  • Gannon, Brenda
  • Kennelly, Brendan

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • O'Shea, Eamon & Gannon, Brenda & Kennelly, Brendan, 2008. "Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in mental health care in Ireland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 359-370, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:88:y:2008:i:2-3:p:359-370
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(08)00089-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Martín-Fernández, Jesús & Gómez-Gascón, Tomás & Oliva-Moreno, Juan & del Cura-González, María Isabel & Domínguez-Bidagor, Julia & Beamud-Lagos, Milagros & Sanz-Cuesta, Teresa, 2010. "Perception of the economic value of primary care services: A willingness to pay study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 266-272, March.
    2. Victoor, Aafke & Hansen, Johan & van den Akker-van Marle, M. Elske & van den Berg, Bernard & van den Hout, Wilbert B. & de Jong, Judith D., 2014. "Choosing your health insurance package: A method for measuring the public's preferences for changes in the national health insurance plan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 257-265.
    3. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Tatjana E. MacLeod & Anthony H. Harris & Ajay Mahal, 2016. "Stated and Revealed Preferences for Funding New High-Cost Cancer Drugs: A Critical Review of the Evidence from Patients, the Public and Payers," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, vol. 9(3), pages 201-222, June.
    5. repec:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0511-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Erdem, Seda & Campbell, Danny & Thompson, Carl, 2014. "Elimination and selection by aspects in health choice experiments: Prioritising health service innovations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 10-22.
    7. Erdem, Seda & Campbell, Danny & Thompson, Carl, 2014. "Addressing elimination and selection by aspects decision rules in discrete choice experiments: does it matter?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169839, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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: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: (Dana Niculescu) or (). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.