IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v31y2013i10p853-861.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using the Stated Preference Technique for Eliciting Valuations: The Role of the Payment Vehicle

Author

Listed:
  • Dorte Gyrd-Hansen

    ()

Abstract

At the core of the stated preference method is choice of payment vehicle. Since payment vehicle is an intrinsic characteristic of a good, the choice of payment vehicle will naturally impact on the valuation of the good. Typical payment vehicles applied in the context of health are income tax levies, out-of-pocket payments at the point of consumption or private health insurance premiums. Where out-of-pocket payments will elicit use value only, private health insurance premiums will also disclose option value, i.e. the utility of knowing that one has access to a healthcare service should one need it. Income tax levies will disclose what in this paper is referred to as citizen’s preferences, i.e. individual preferences that include use value, option value as well as (caring) externalities. This paper advocates that researchers design stated preference studies that encompass all relevant dimensions of value, and that serious thought is given to choice of payment vehicle. However, it is important to acknowledge that choice of payment vehicle has other potential implications for valuations. Payment vehicle and provider of services may be strongly linked in people’s minds. If respondents implicitly associate a specific type of provider with a certain type of payment vehicle, it is important that any misperception is corrected by way of a precise description of the good being valued. Further, a pertinent issue is the extent to which respondents ‘protest’ to the stated preference question and how we should deal with these ‘protesters’. No agreement currently exists about the procedure used to separate genuine zero values from protest values, nor about the treatment of protest responses in subsequent analyses. Beliefs are strongly associated with protesting, and exclusion of protest bids may therefore exclude individuals who have strong preferences for a payment vehicle. If it is acknowledged that payment vehicle is an intrinsic component of a good, exclusion of respondents who exhibit specific viewpoints may result in biased welfare estimates. Yet another issue is the presence of self-consciousness amongst respondents. If people derive utility from saying they are willing to pay for a public good (social desirability bias or warm glow), this potentially drives a wedge between people’s stated value for a good in a survey and people’s value for a good provided to them from the government. Tax payments are more binding than out-of-pocket payments. Payment towards public health programs via income tax may therefore generate lower consumer surplus than if the intervention was financed out-of-pocket with the option of opting out both in terms of participation as well as financially. Finally, only a few studies have looked at the impact of frequency of payments. The effect of temporal framing is clearly potentially important and at the same time an unavoidable component of the payment vehicle, yet it remains at present unexplored. Copyright Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2013. "Using the Stated Preference Technique for Eliciting Valuations: The Role of the Payment Vehicle," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(10), pages 853-861, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:31:y:2013:i:10:p:853-861
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-013-0086-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s40273-013-0086-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Anna Alberini & Alistair Hunt & Anil Markandya, 2006. "Willingness to Pay to Reduce Mortality Risks: Evidence from a Three-Country Contingent Valuation Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 33(2), pages 251-264, February.
    2. Lars Hultkrantz & Gunnar Lindberg & Camilla Andersson, 2006. "The value of improved road safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 151-170, March.
    3. Jorge E. Araña & Carmelo J. León, 2002. "Willingness to pay for health risk reduction in the context of altruism," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 623-635.
    4. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Kristrom, Bengt & Gerdtham, Ulf-G., 1993. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- further results," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 95-108, April.
    5. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    6. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), October.
    7. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Culyer, Anthony J. & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H., 2008. "Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 325-338, March.
    8. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    9. Parkinson, Bonny & Goodall, Stephen, 2011. "Considering consumer choice in the economic evaluation of mandatory health programmes: A review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 236-244, August.
    10. Jones-Lee, M W, 1992. "Paternalistic Altruism and the Value of Statistical Life," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(410), pages 80-90, January.
    11. Meyerhoff, Jurgen & Liebe, Ulf, 2006. "Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 583-594, June.
    12. Rowe, Robert D. & Schulze, William D. & Breffle, William S., 1996. "A Test for Payment Card Biases," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 178-185, September.
    13. Svensson, Mikael & Vredin Johansson, Maria, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Private and Public Safety: Why the Difference?," Working Papers 2007:2, Örebro University, School of Business.
    14. Shogren, Jason F., 1990. "Impact of Self-Protection and Self-Insurance on Individual Response to Risk (The)," Staff General Research Papers Archive 297, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    15. James K. Hammitt & Kevin Haninger, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Food Safety: Sensitivity to Duration and Severity of Illness," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1170-1175.
    16. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & O'Conor, Richard M, 1996. "The Value of Private Safety versus the Value of Public Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 263-275, November.
    17. Andersson, Henrik & Lindberg, Gunnar, 2007. "Benevolence and the value of road safety," Working Papers 2007:4, Swedish National Road & Transport Research Institute (VTI), revised 04 Jun 2008.
    18. Arianne de Blaeij & Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Piet Rietveld & Erik T. Verhoef, 2000. "The Value of Statistical Life in Road Safety: A Meta-Analysis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-089/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Kjær, Trine, 2011. "The influence of information and private versus public provision on preferences for screening for prostate cancer: A willingness-to-pay study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 277-289, August.
    20. Shogren, Jason F, 1990. "The Impact of Self-protection and Self-insurance on Individual Response to Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 191-204, June.
    21. Bradley Jorgensen & Geoffrey Syme & Brian Bishop & Blair Nancarrow, 1999. "Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 131-150, July.
    22. David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme & Emma Frew, 2004. "Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 183-190.
    23. Fredric Jacobsson & Magnus Johannesson & Lars Borgquist, 2007. "Is Altruism Paternalistic?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(520), pages 761-781, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:31:y:2013:i:10:p:853-861. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). 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 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.