Eliciting several willingness to pay in a single contingent valuation survey: application to health care
The usual implementation of contingent valuation (CV), in the context of priorities setting for allocation of public funds in health care, is to develop as many surveys as there are programmes, i.e. to perform separate evaluations (SE). In the EuroWill project, three health programmes (for heart disease, breast cancer and a service of helicopter ambulance) were however simultaneously evaluated, i.e. a joint evaluation (JE) was performed. The paper examines the issue of the econometric techniques that should be used to estimate WTP values obtained in the context of JE by comparing the application of independent OLS regressions for each programme versus simultaneous estimations using seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR) on data of the French EuroWill survey. It shows that separate estimations may lead to misspecifications because they cannot take into account that JE exogenously provides a reference structure to the respondent which affects the estimates of WTP for each programme. Therefore, the potential advantage of JE versus SE as an elicitation technique in CV studies applied to health care (to better control the referents used by respondents for evaluating different programmes) only holds if simultaneous rather than independent techniques are used in the estimation of WTPs. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume (Year): 12 (2003)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bazerman, Max H. & Moore, Don A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Blount, Sally, 1999. "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-58, May.
- A Diener & B O'Brien & A Gafni, 1997.
"Health Care Contingent Valuation Studies: A review and classification of the literature,"
Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series
1997-07, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
- Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326.
- Jan Abel Olsen, 1997. "Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(6), pages 603-612.
- Bazerman, Max H. & Schroth, Holly A. & Shah, Pri Pradhan & Diekmann, Kristina A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E., 1994. "The Inconsistent Role of Comparison Others and Procedural Justice in Reactions to Hypothetical Job Descriptions: Implications for Job Acceptance Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 326-352, December.
- Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
- Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 1997. "Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 699-707, March.
- 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.
- Dhrymes, Phoebus J., 1986. "Limited dependent variables," Handbook of Econometrics, in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 27, pages 1567-1631 Elsevier.
- Selart, Marcus, 1996. "Structure Compatibility and Restructuring in Judgment and Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 106-116, February.
- Downing, Mark & Ozuna, Teofilo Jr., 1996. "Testing the Reliability of the Benefit Function Transfer Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 316-322, May.
- Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley & Mona Abdalla, 1997. "Using Willingness To Pay To Value Close Substitutes: Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 145-159.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 5-38, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:1:p:51-64. 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-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.