IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v30y2022i1d10.1007_s10100-021-00761-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preference measurement in health using experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Zweifel

    (Emeritus University of Zurich)

Abstract

This contribution has three objectives. First, it seeks to justify the use of the economic criterion, “Provision of health care in accordance with the preferences of current and potential patients” for guiding decisions concerning the adoption of costly innovation in health. Next, it proposes the measurement of these preferences in the guise of willingness to pay (WTP) values through Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs). Third, it purports to examine two popular arguments against accepting lay persons´ preferences, viz. that they are unwilling or unable to express preferences with regard to health and health care, and that their preferences are unstable, depending on the current state of health. Both of these arguments are refuted by the findings of four DCEs designed to measure WTP for attributes of health insurance and of the treatment of diabetes, respectively [Zweifel in J Regul Econ 29(3): 319–332, 2006; MacNeil Vrooman and Zweifel in Eur J Health Econ 12(1): 87–95, 2011; Sennhauser and Zweifel in: Jakovlijevic M (ed.), Health Economics and Policy Challenges in Global Emerging Markets. NOVA Publishers, Hauppauge NY, 2016].

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Zweifel, 2022. "Preference measurement in health using experiments," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(1), pages 49-66, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:30:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10100-021-00761-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-021-00761-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10100-021-00761-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-021-00761-6?utm_source=ideas
    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
    ---><---

    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. Janet Vroomen & Peter Zweifel, 2011. "Preferences for health insurance and health status: does it matter whether you are Dutch or German?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(1), pages 87-95, February.
    2. Peter Zweifel & Harry Telser & Stephan Vaterlaus, 2006. "Consumer Resistance Against Regulation: The Case of Health Care," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 319-332, May.
    3. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    4. Louis Eeckhoudt & Harris Schlesinger, 2006. "Putting Risk in Its Proper Place," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 280-289, March.
    5. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Peter Zweifel & Anika Kaczynski & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Experimental measurement of preferences in health care using best-worst scaling (BWS): theoretical and statistical issues," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Zweifel, Peter & Manning, Willard G., 2000. "Moral hazard and consumer incentives in health care," Handbook of Health Economics, in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 409-459, Elsevier.
    7. Daniel Burkhard & Christian P. R. Schmid & Kaspar Wüthrich, 2019. "Financial incentives and physician prescription behavior: Evidence from dispensing regulations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(9), pages 1114-1129, September.
    8. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    9. Peter Zweifel, 2013. "Managed Care: Prescription for Failure? Lessons from Switzerland," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 11(01), pages 27-31, April.
    10. repec:ces:ifodic:v:11:y:2013:i:1:p:19078507 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
    12. Verity Watson & Stéphane Luchini & Dean Regier & Rainer Schulz, 2020. "Monetary analysis of health outcomes," Post-Print hal-03586395, HAL.
    13. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    14. Peter Zweifel, 2013. "Managed Care: Prescription for Failure? Lessons from Switzerland," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 11(1), pages 27-31, 04.
    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. Peter Zweifel, 2022. "Health economics explained through six questions and answers," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 50-69, February.
    2. Peter Zweifel & H. E. Frech, 2016. "Why ‘Optimal’ Payment for Healthcare Providers Can Never be Optimal Under Community Rating," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 9-20, February.
    3. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter, 2018. "End-of-life healthcare expenditure: Testing economic explanations using a discrete choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 30-38.
    4. Andree Ehlert & Thomas Wein & Peter Zweifel, 2017. "Overcoming resistance against managed care – insights from a bargaining model," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. A. Mantovi, 2013. "Mapping completely proper rationality," Economics Department Working Papers 2013-EP01, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    6. Determann, Domino & Lambooij, Mattijs S. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W. & Hayen, Arthur P. & Varkevisser, Marco & Schut, Frederik T. & Wit, G. Ardine de, 2016. "What health plans do people prefer? The trade-off between premium and provider choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 10-18.
    7. Peter Zweifel, 2013. "Managed Care: Prescription for Failure? Lessons from Switzerland," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 11(01), pages 27-31, April.
    8. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    9. Conti, G.; & Giustinelli, P.;, 2022. "For Better or Worse? Subjective Expectations and Cost-Benefit Trade-Offs in Health Behavior: An Application to Lockdown Compliance in the United Kingdom," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 22/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    11. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    12. Pestana, Joana & Frutuoso, João & Costa, Eduardo & Fonseca, Filipa, 2024. "Heterogeneity in physician's job preferences in a dual practice context – Evidence from a DCE," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 343(C).
    13. Vo, Linh K. & Allen, Michelle J. & Cunich, Michelle & Thillainadesan, Janani & McPhail, Steven M. & Sharma, Pakhi & Wallis, Shannon & McGowan, Kelly & Carter, Hannah E., 2024. "Stakeholders’ preferences for the design and delivery of virtual care services: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    14. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    15. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    16. Jinzi Zhang & Pu Ge & Xialei Li & Mei Yin & Yujia Wang & Waikit Ming & Jinhui Li & Pei Li & Xinying Sun & Yibo Wu, 2022. "Personality Effects on Chinese Public Preference for the COVID-19 Vaccination: Discrete Choice Experiment and Latent Profile Analysis Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-20, April.
    17. Peter Zweifel, 2012. "The Grossman model after 40 years," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(6), pages 677-682, December.
    18. Martin Dumav & Maxwell B. Stinchcombe, 2021. "The multiple priors of the open-minded decision maker," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(2), pages 663-692, March.
    19. Krueger, Rico & Daziano, Ricardo A., 2022. "Stated choice analysis of preferences for COVID-19 vaccines using the Choquet integral," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    20. Dardanoni, Valentino & Guerriero, Carla, 2021. "Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:cejnor:v:30:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10100-021-00761-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.