Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care?
Willingness-to-pay studies are increasingly being used in the evaluation of health care programmes. There are, however, methodological issues that need to be resolved before the potential of willingness-to-pay can be fully exploited as a tool for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Of particular methodological interest are the consequences of varying the order in which willingness-to-pay questions are presented to respondents in contingent valuation studies. This paper examines the possibility of ordering effects in willingness-to-pay studies in health care. That is, when simultaneously asking willingness-to-pay questions about three health care programmes, does the order the programmes are presented have an impact on the reported willingness-to-pay? We present the results from a survey which allowed us to test for ordering effects and examine, in particular, if the respondent?s past experience with the health care service interacted with the ordering effects.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
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.:
- 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.
- Carson, Richard & Flores, Nicholas E. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1998. "Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 314-323, November.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
- Paul Dolan, 1997. "The Nature of Individual Preferences: A Prologue to Johannesson, Jonsson and Karlsson," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(1), pages 91-93.
- Richard C. Ready & Jean C. Buzby & Dayuan Hu, 1996. "Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Value Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(3), pages 397-411.
- Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
- Cam Donaldson & Ruth Thomas & David Torgerson, 1997. "Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 79-84.
- Holmes Thomas P. & Kramer Randall A., 1995. "An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 121-132, July.
- Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998.
"Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature,"
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326.
- 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.
- Carson Richard T. & Mitchell Robert Cameron, 1995. "Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 155-173, March.
- Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2000. "A note on the warm glow of giving and scope sensitivity in contingent valuation studies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 343-349, August.
- Bente Halvorsen, 1996. "Ordering effects in contingent valuation surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 8(4), pages 485-499, December.
- Randall A. Kramer & D. Evan Mercer, 1997. "Valuing a Global Environmental Good: U.S. Residents' Willingness to Pay to Protect Tropical Rain Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 196-210.
- Boyle Kevin J. & Welsh Michael P. & Bishop Richard C., 1993. "The Role of Question Order and Respondent Experience in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 80-99, July. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:21:y:2002:i:4:p:585-599. 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)
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.