IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v13y2004i9p901-907.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Lancsar

    (Business School (Economics) and Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)

  • Elizabeth Savage

    (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia)

Abstract

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are being used increasingly in health economics to elicit preferences for products and programs. The results of such experiments have been used to calculate measures of welfare or more specifically, respondents' 'willingness to pay' (WTP) for products and programs and their 'marginal willingness to pay' (MWTP) for the attributes that make up such products and programs. In this note we show that the methods currently used to derive measures of welfare from DCEs in the health economics literature are not consistent with random utility theory (RUT), or with microeconomic welfare theory more generally. The inconsistency with welfare theory is an important limitation on the use of such WTP estimates in cost-benefit analyses. We describe an alternative method of deriving measures of welfare (compensating variation) from DCEs that is consistent with RUT and is derived using welfare theory. We demonstrate its use in an empirical application to derive the WTP for asthma medication and compare it to the results elicited from the method currently used in the health economics literature. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:9:p:901-907
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.870
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.870
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    2. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Propper, Carol, 1990. "Contingent Valuation of Time Spent on NHS Waiting Lists," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(400), pages 193-199, Supplemen.
    5. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    6. Emily Lancsar, 2002. "Deriving welfare measures from stated preference discrete choice modelling experiments, CHERE Discussion Paper No 48," Discussion Papers 48, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    7. Fernando San Miguel & Mandy Ryan & Emma McIntosh, 2000. "Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(7), pages 823-833.
    8. Hurley, Jeremiah, 2000. "An overview of the normative economics of the health sector," Handbook of Health Economics,in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 2, pages 55-118 Elsevier.
    9. Carol Propper, 1995. "The Disutility of Time Spent on the United Kingdom's National Health Service Waiting Lists," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 30(4), pages 677-700.
    10. 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.
    11. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, April.
    12. Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Jes Søgaard, 2001. "Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 617-634.
    13. Scott, Anthony, 2001. "Eliciting GPs' preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 329-347, May.
    14. Ryan, Mandy & Wordsworth, Sarah, 2000. "Sensitivity of Willingness to Pay Estimates to the Level of Attributes in Discrete Choice Experiments," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(5), pages 504-524, November.
    15. Trajtenberg, Manuel, 1989. "The Welfare Analysis of Product Innovations, with an Application to Computed Tomography Scanners," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(2), pages 444-479, 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. Nieboer, Anna P. & Koolman, Xander & Stolk, Elly A., 2010. "Preferences for long-term care services: Willingness to pay estimates derived from a discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1317-1325, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Jensen, Jørgen Dejgaard & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Nordström, Jonas, 2012. "Economic Costs and Benefits of Promoting Healthy Takeaway Meals at Workplace Canteens," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(04), pages 1-27, December.
    4. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    5. 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.
    6. Goodall, Stephen & King, Madeleine & Ewing, Jane & Smith, Narelle & Kenny, Patricia, 2012. "Preferences for support services among adolescents and young adults with cancer or a blood disorder: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 304-311.
    7. Trine Kjær & Mickael Bech & Christian Kronborg & Morten Mørkbak, 2013. "Public preferences for establishing nephrology facilities in Greenland: estimating willingness-to-pay using a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(5), pages 739-748, October.
    8. repec:eee:ecoser:v:18:y:2016:i:c:p:58-67 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0506-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Richard Norman & Gisselle Gallego, 2008. "Equity weights for economic evaluation: An Australian Discrete Choice Experiment, CHERE Working Paper 2008/5," Working Papers 2008/5, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    11. repec:spr:hecrev:v:7:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-017-0162-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia & Humphreys, John & Joyce, Catherine & Kalb, Guyonne & Jeon, Sung-Hee & McGrail, Matthew, 2013. "Getting doctors into the bush: General Practitioners' preferences for rural location," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 33-44.
    13. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    14. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni, 2008. "Eliciting the demand for long-term care coverage: a discrete choice modelling analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 411-433.
    15. Lancsar, Emily & Wildman, John & Donaldson, Cam & Ryan, Mandy & Baker, Rachel, 2011. "Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 466-478, March.
    16. Axel Mühlbacher & F. Reed Johnson, 2016. "Choice Experiments to Quantify Preferences for Health and Healthcare: State of the Practice," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 253-266, June.
    17. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    18. repec:eee:hepoli:v:121:y:2017:i:11:p:1154-1160 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Emily Lancsar & Cam Donaldson, 2005. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 314-316, December.
    20. 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.
    21. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters,in: Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    22. Carol Mansfield & Daniel J. Phaneuf & F. Reed Johnson & Jui-Chen Yang & Robert Beach, 2008. "Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 282-305.

    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:13:y:2004:i:9:p:901-907. 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). 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.