IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v24y2006i9p855-868.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Emma McIntosh

Abstract

A great advantage of the stated preference discrete choice experiment (SPDCE) approach to economic evaluation methodology is its immense flexibility within applied cost-benefit analyses (CBAs). However, while the use of SPDCEs in healthcare has increased markedly in recent years there has been a distinct lack of equivalent CBAs in healthcare using such SPDCE-derived valuations. This article outlines specific issues and some practical suggestions for consideration relevant to the development of CBAs using SPDCE-derived benefits. The article shows that SPDCE-derived CBA can adopt recent developments in cost-effectiveness methodology including the cost-effectiveness plane, appropriate consideration of uncertainty, the net-benefit framework and probabilistic sensitivity analysis methods, while maintaining the theoretical advantage of the SPDCE approach. The concept of a cost-benefit plane is no different in principle to the cost-effectiveness plane and can be a useful tool for reporting and presenting the results of CBAs. However, there are many challenging issues to address for the advancement of CBA methodology using SPCDEs within healthcare. Particular areas for development include the importance of accounting for uncertainty in SPDCE-derived willingness-to-pay values, the methodology of SPDCEs in clinical trial settings and economic models, measurement issues pertinent to using SPDCEs specifically in healthcare, and the importance of issues such as consideration of the dynamic nature of healthcare and the resulting impact this has on the validity of attribute definitions and context. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:24:y:2006:i:9:p:855-868
    DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624090-00004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/00019053-200624090-00004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/00019053-200624090-00004?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. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost‐effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740, December.
    3. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    4. McIntosh, E. & Ryan, M., 2002. "Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 367-382, June.
    5. Daniel Polsky & Henry A. Glick & Richard Willke & Kevin Schulman, 1997. "Confidence Intervals for Cost–Effectiveness Ratios: A Comparison of Four Methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 243-252, May.
    6. Roe, Brian & Boyle, Kevin J. & Teisl, Mario F., 1996. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 145-159, September.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    8. Magat, Wesley A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Huber, Joel, 1988. "Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 395-411, December.
    9. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    10. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
    11. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    12. F. Reed Johnson & Melissa Ruby Banzhaf & William H. Desvousges, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple‐format, stated‐preference approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 295-317, June.
    13. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    14. Chakraborty, Goutam & Ball, Dwayne & Gaeth, Gary J. & Jun, Sunkyu, 2002. "The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares: a Monte Carlo simulation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 237-249, March.
    15. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey & Jordan Louviere, 2002. "Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 161-170.
    16. Charles Blackorby & David Donaldson, 1990. "A Review Article: The Case against the Use of the Sum of Compensating Variations in Cost-Benefit Analysis," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 23(3), pages 471-494, August.
    17. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Chris McCabe & Andrew Briggs & Ron Akehurst & Martin Buxton & John Brazier & Tony O'Hagan, 2005. "Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 339-347, April.
    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. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    2. Duy Chinh Nguyen & Huu Dung Hoang & Huu Tien Hoang & Quang Trung Bui & Lan Phuong Nguyen, 2019. "Modal Preference in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: An Experiment With New Modes of Transport," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(2), pages 21582440198, April.
    3. Fawsitt, Christopher G. & Bourke, Jane & Greene, Richard A. & McElroy, Brendan & Krucien, Nicolas & Murphy, Rosemary & Lutomski, Jennifer E., 2017. "What do women want? Valuing women’s preferences and estimating demand for alternative models of maternity care using a discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(11), pages 1154-1160.
    4. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    5. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. van den Berg, Bernard & Al, Maiwenn & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: The conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1342-1355, September.
    4. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    5. Gorm Kipperberg & Douglas Larson, 2012. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Community Recycling Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 577-604, December.
    6. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    7. Ryan, Mandy & Netten, Ann & Skatun, Diane & Smith, Paul, 2006. "Using discrete choice experiments to estimate a preference-based measure of outcome--An application to social care for older people," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 927-944, September.
    8. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    9. Farber, Stephen & Griner, Brian, 2000. "Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 63-76, July.
    10. McIntosh, E. & Ryan, M., 2002. "Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 367-382, June.
    11. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    12. Robert J. Johnston & RStephen K. Swallow & Dana Marie Bauer, 2002. "Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 481-500.
    13. Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
    14. Holmes, Thomas P. & Boyle, Kevin J., 2004. "Dynamic Learning And Context-Dependence In Sequential, Attribute-Based Contingent Valuation," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20014, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16, January.
    16. Thomas P. Holmes & Kevin J. Boyle, 2005. "Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(1).
    17. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," Discussion Papers dp-05-60, Resources For the Future.
    18. Mogas, Joan & Riera, Pere & Bennett, Jeff, 2006. "A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 5-30, March.
    19. Atallah, Shadi S. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Leahy, Jessica & Bennett, Karen, 2020. "Preference Heterogeneity and Neighborhood Effect in Invasive Species Control: The Case of Glossy Buckthorn in New Hampshire and Maine Forests," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304623, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Adam Finn & Stuart McFadyen & Colin Hoskins, 2003. "Valuing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 177-192, November.

    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:pharme:v:24:y:2006:i:9:p:855-868. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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