IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v11y2002i2p129-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring willingness‐to‐pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Harry Telser
  • Peter Zweifel

Abstract

This study applies conjoint analysis (CA) to estimate the marginal willingness‐to‐pay (MWTP) of elderly individuals for a reduction of the risk of fracture of the femur. The good in question is a hypothetical hip protector which lowers the risk of a fracture by different amounts. Other attributes are ease of handling, wearing comfort, and out‐of‐pocket cost, which are traded off against risk reduction. In 500 face‐to‐face interviews, pensioners stated whether or not they would buy the product. Results suggest that MWTP for wearing comfort exceeds that for risk reduction. Indeed, willingness‐to‐pay for the product as a whole is negative, indicating that it should not be included as a mandatory benefit in health insurance. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Harry Telser & Peter Zweifel, 2002. "Measuring willingness‐to‐pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 129-139, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:2:p:129-139
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.653
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Mandy Ryan & Jenny Hughes, 1997. "Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Women's Preferences for Miscarriage Management," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 261-273, May.
    3. Vick, Sandra & Scott, Anthony, 1998. "Agency in health care. Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 587-605, October.
    4. Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh & Phil Shackley, 1998. "Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 373-378, June.
    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. Yasushi Ohkusa & Tamie Sugawara, 2006. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and its application for policy evaluation for medicine or public health," Development Economics Working Papers 22354, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    2. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    3. Lena Winslott Hiselius, 2005. "Using Choice Experiments to Assess People's Preferences for Railway Transports of Hazardous Materials," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1199-1214, October.
    4. Peter Zweifel & Friedrich Breyer, 2012. "The Economics of Social Health Insurance," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.),The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Age and Choice in Health Insurance," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(1), pages 27-40, January.
    6. Yves Schneider & Peter Zweifel, 2013. "Spatial Effects in Willingness to Pay for Avoiding Nuclear Risks," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 149(III), pages 357-379, September.
    7. Milena Pavlova & Wim Groot & Godefridus Merode, 2005. "An Application of Rating Conjoint Analysis to Study the Importance of Quality-, Access- and Price-attributes to Health Care Consumers," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 267-286, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.
    10. Qingbin Wang & Laurel Valchuis & Ethan Thompson & David Conner & Robert Parsons, 2019. "Consumer Support and Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Solar, Wind, and Cow Manure in the United States: Evidence from a Survey in Vermont," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Christian Handke & Bodo Balazs & Joan-Josep Vallbé, 2016. "Going means trouble and staying makes it double: the value of licensing recorded music online," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 40(3), pages 227-259, August.
    12. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    13. F. Reed Johnson & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Semra Özdemir & Deborah A. Marshall & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2011. "How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-330, March.
    14. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Economics Working Papers 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    15. Yasushi Ohkusa & Tamie Sugawara, 2006. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and its application for policy evaluation for medicine or public health," Public Policy Review, Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance Japan, vol. 2(1), pages 45-76, January.
    16. Andriy Danyliv & Milena Pavlova & Irena Gryga & Wim Groot, 2015. "Preferences for physician services in Ukraine: a discrete choice experiment," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 346-365, October.
    17. Hiselius, Lena Winslott, 2005. "Preferences regarding road transports of hazardous materials using choice experiments - any sign of biases?," Working Papers 2005:30, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    18. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    19. Kara Hanson & Barbara McPake & Pamela Nakamba & Luke Archard, 2005. "Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(7), pages 687-701, July.
    20. Antonio Trujillo & Fernando Ruiz & John Bridges & Jeannette Amaya & Christine Buttorff & Angélica Quiroga, 2012. "Understanding consumer preferences in the context of managed competition," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 99-111, March.
    21. Anna Merino, 2003. "Eliciting consumers preferences using stated preference discrete choice models: Contingent ranking versus choice experiment," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 705, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    22. Mousumi Roy & Lassi Linnanen & Sankha Chakrabortty & Parimal Pal, 2019. "Developing a Closed-Loop Water Conservation System at Micro Level Through Circular Economy Approach," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(12), pages 4157-4170, September.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:11:y:2002:i:2:p:129-139. 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: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.