IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v91y2009i2p211-218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to pay for weight-control treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Jin-Tan
  • Tsou, Meng-Wen
  • Hammitt, James K.

Abstract

Objectives To estimate willingness to pay (WTP) for alternative forms of weight-control treatment and evaluate how it varies with individual characteristics.Methods Contingent valuation (CV) survey of employed females in Taiwan using double-bounded dichotomous-choice question format and telephone interview. Statistical models include an estimated correction for sample-selection bias associated with respondents' interest in weight loss.Results Estimated WTP is strongly and positively associated with younger age, greater personal income, higher body weight, adverse personal weight perceptions, and greater peer pressure for weight control. There is a little evidence of sample-selection bias associated with the decision to lose weight. Estimated WTP for a weight-loss medicine is about US$ 12 per month, larger than estimated WTP for a low-calorie diet of about US$ 10 per month.Conclusions WTP for weight-control treatment among women in Taiwan is significant and related to individual characteristics such as age, income, and perceptions about current and optimal weight.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Jin-Tan & Tsou, Meng-Wen & Hammitt, James K., 2009. "Willingness to pay for weight-control treatment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 211-218, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:91:y:2009:i:2:p:211-218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(08)00290-X
    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. Jin-Tan Liu & James K. Hammitt & Jung-Der Wang & Meng-Wen Tsou, 2005. "Valuation of the risk of SARS in Taiwan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 83-91.
    2. 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.
    3. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    4. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    5. Rodolfo Nayga, 2001. "Effect of Schooling on Obesity: Is Health Knowledge a Moderating Factor?," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 129-137.
    6. Kenkel, Donald S, 1991. "Health Behavior, Health Knowledge, and Schooling," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(2), pages 287-305, April.
    7. Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 1999. "Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 33-62, April.
    8. Cawley, John, 2008. "Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 281-292, July.
    9. Werner, Megan, 1999. "Allowing for Zeros in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent-Valuation Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 17(4), pages 479-486, October.
    10. Duan, Naihua, et al, 1984. "Choosing between the Sample-Selection Model and the Multi-part Model," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 2(3), pages 283-289, July.
    11. Smith, Richard D., 2005. "Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 515-529, May.
    12. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    13. Rodolfo Nayga, 2000. "Schooling, health knowledge and obesity," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(7), pages 815-822.
    14. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Jin-Tan Liu & James K. Hammitt & Jung-Der Wang & Jin-Long Liu, 2000. "Mother's willingness to pay for her own and her child's health: a contingent valuation study in Taiwan," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 319-326.
    17. Seung-Hoon Yoo & Hee-Jong Yang, 2001. "Application of Sample Selection Model to Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(2), pages 147-163, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:91:y:2009:i:2:p:211-218. 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.