IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Do the "Dollars" Make Sense?


  • Bernie O'Brien
  • Amiram Gafni


There is growing interest in the application of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) as a tech nique for the economic evaluation of health care programs. A distinguishing feature of CBA is that costs and benefits are expressed in the same units of value—typically money. A popular method for estimating money values for health care programs is the use of willingness-to-pay (or accept) survey techniques known as contingent valuation. This paper presents a conceptual framework to help in the interpretation or design of contingent valuation studies in health care. To be consistent with the theory upon which CBA is built, the authors consider what types of questions should be asked of what populations. They conclude that studies undertaking contingent valuation should dis tinguish between compensating variation and equivalent variation, and recognize that respondents can be gainers or losers in utility and therefore should be asked willing ness-to-pay (or accept) questions as appropriate. Current critical-appraisal guidance in the health care literature for CBA is poor and unlikely to offer useful demarcation between good and bad CBA studies. More work is needed exploring whether recently issued guidelines for contingent valuation in environmental damage assessment are applicable to health care studies. Key words: cost-benefit analysis; contingent valu ation ; willingness to pay. (Med Decis Making 1996;16:288-299)

Suggested Citation

  • Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1996. "When Do the "Dollars" Make Sense?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 288-299, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:3:p:288-299
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9601600314

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Donaldson, Cam, 1990. "Willingness to pay for publicly-provided goods : A Possible Measure of Benefit?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 103-118, June.
    2. Amiram Gafni & Abraham Ravid, 1989. "The Compensating Variation Approach: The Case of Lives Saved vs Lives Taken," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 20, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    3. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    4. Mishan, E J, 1971. "Evaluation of Life and Limb: A Theoretical Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(4), pages 687-705, July-Aug..
    5. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    6. Willig, Robert D, 1976. "Consumer's Surplus without Apology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(4), pages 589-597, September.
    7. Cameron, Trudy Ann & James, Michelle D, 1987. "Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(2), pages 269-276, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Cropper, Maureen L., 2000. "Has Economic Research Answered the Needs of Environmental Policy?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 328-350, May.
    3. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Samdin, Zaiton & Noor Ghani, Awang, 2020. "Willingness to Pay for Conservation of Mangrove Forest in Kuala Perlis, Malaysia," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 54(3), pages 89-99.
    4. Hanemann, W. Michael & Kanninen, Barbara, 1996. "The Statistical Analysis Of Discrete-Response Cv Data," CUDARE Working Papers 25022, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. Seung-Hoon Yoo & Kyung-Suk Chae, 2001. "Measuring the Economic Benefits of the Ozone Pollution Control Policy in Seoul: Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 38(1), pages 49-60, January.
    6. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    7. Chun-Chu Yeh & Cheng-Shen Lin & Chin-Huang Huang, 2018. "The Total Economic Value of Sport Tourism in Belt and Road Development—An Environmental Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    8. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    11. Lim, Seul-Ye & Kim, Hyo-Jin & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "Public's willingness to pay a premium for bioethanol in Korea: A contingent valuation study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 20-27.
    12. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    13. P. Calia & E. Strazzera, 1998. "Bias and efficiency of single vs. double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis," Working Paper CRENoS 199801, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    14. J. Paul Combs & Rickey C. Kirkpatrick & Jason F. Shogren & Joseph A. Herriges, 1993. "Matching Grants and Public Goods: a Closed-Ended Contingent Valuation Experiment," Public Finance Review, , vol. 21(2), pages 178-195, April.
    15. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    16. Deutschmann, Joshua W. & Postepska, Agnieszka & Sarr, Leopold, 2021. "Measuring willingness to pay for reliable electricity: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    17. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    18. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    19. Carmelo Javier León, 1995. "El método dicotómico de valoración contingente: una aplicación a los espacios naturales en Gran Canaria," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 19(1), pages 83-106, January.
    20. Deborah Bentivoglio & Adele Finco & Giorgia Bucci & Giacomo Staffolani, 2020. "Is There a Promising Market for the A2 Milk? Analysis of Italian Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.


    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:sae:medema:v:16:y:1996:i:3:p:288-299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.