IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care

  • Mandy Ryan

    (Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Aberdeen, Scotland, UK)

  • Fernando San Miguel

    (Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Aberdeen, Scotland, UK)

Registered author(s):

    Experiments concerned with modelling individual preferences are based on the assumption of completeness i.e. it is assumed that individuals have well-defined preferences for any choice they are presented with. However, this may not be the case for goods such as health care, where individuals are not used to making choices. If this assumption is violated, the large body of experimental economic literature eliciting patient preferences in health care may be challenged. This paper reports the results of a discrete choice experiment carried out to examine the assumption of complete preferences within health care. The tests carried out are based on the comparison of preferences for three different goods for which different levels of formed preferences are expected: a supermarket; dentist consultation and bowel cancer screening. The results do not provide sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis. However, further research is required before these results are generalised. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.730
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

    Volume (Year): 12 (2003)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 295-307

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:4:p:295-307
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

    References listed on IDEAS
    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Lockwood, Michael, 1998. "Integrated value assessment using paired comparisons," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 73-87, April.
    2. Alan Shiell & Janelle Seymour & Penelope Hawe & Sue Cameron, 2000. "Are preferences over health states complete?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 47-55.
    3. Adam Oliver, 2000. "Complete preferences over health states: a reply to the paper by Shiell et al," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(8), pages 727-728.
    4. Alan Shiell & Penelope Hawe & Janelle Seymour, 2000. "Will our understanding of completeness ever be complete?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(8), pages 729-731.
    5. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
    6. Henry J. Aaron, 1994. "Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government: Public Policy, Values, and Consciousness," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 3-21, Spring.
    7. Opaluch, James J. & Segerson, Kathleen, 1989. "Rational Roots Of "Irrational" Behavior: New Theories Of Economic Decision-Making," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 18(2), October.
    8. Clark, Judy & Burgess, Jacquelin & Harrison, Carolyn M., 2000. ""I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 45-62, April.
    9. Wang, Hua, 1997. "Treatment of "Don't-Know" Responses in Contingent Valuation Surveys: A Random Valuation Model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 219-232, February.
    10. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-17, March.
    11. Grether, David M. & Plott, Charles R., . "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," Working Papers 152, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    12. Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah, 1983. "Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 596-605, September.
    13. Dubourg, W R & Jones-Lee, M W & Loomes, Graham, 1994. "Imprecise Preferences and the WTP-WTA Disparity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 115-33, October.
    14. M. Common & I. Reid & R. Blamey, 1997. "Do existence values for cost benefit analysis exist?," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 225-238, March.
    15. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-61, November.
    16. Li Chuan-Zhong & Mattsson Leif, 1995. "Discrete Choice under Preference Uncertainty: An Improved Structural Model for Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 256-269, March.
    17. Cookson, Richard, 2000. "Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 369-401, May.
    18. G. Salkeld & M. Ryan & L. Short, 2000. "The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 267-270.
    19. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. " Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-97, October.
    20. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 1987. "A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 226-247, September.
    21. Alan Shiell & Penelope Hawe & Janelle Seymour, 1997. "Values and preferences are not necessarily the same," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(5), pages 515-518.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:4:p:295-307. 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 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.