IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v15y2006i3p281-293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain

Author

Listed:
  • Richard D. Smith

    (Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK)

Abstract

A general population sample of 314 Australian respondents were randomly allocated to complete a contingent valuation survey administered by face-to-face or telephone ('phone-mail-phone') interview. Although the telephone interview was quicker to complete, no significant difference was found in values obtained through either method. Within each sub-sample, respondents were also randomly allocated to the three different versions of the payment card (PC) questionnaire format: values listed from high-to-low, values listed from low-to-high and values randomly shuffled. The high-to-low version resulted in significantly higher values than the other versions. Further analyses indicate that the randomly shuffled PC version may produce the most 'valid' values. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard D. Smith, 2006. "It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 281-293.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:15:y:2006:i:3:p:281-293 DOI: 10.1002/hec.1055
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.1055
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dubourg, W R & Jones-Lee, M W & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "Imprecise Preferences and Survey Design in Contingent Valuation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 64(256), pages 681-702, November.
    2. Ian Bateman & Ian Langford, 1997. "Non-users' Willingness to Pay for a National Park: An Application and Critique of the Contingent Valuation Method," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 571-582.
    3. 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.
    4. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628.
    5. Spash, Clive L. & Hanley, Nick, 1995. "Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 191-208, March.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    9. Johannesson, Magnus & Jonsson, Bengt & Borgquist, Lars, 1991. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- results of a Swedish pilot study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 461-473.
    10. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16.
    11. Alan Shiell & Lisa Gold, 2003. "If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 909-919.
    12. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    13. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    14. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma & Wolstenholme, Jane L., 2003. "A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 555-574, July.
    15. Jan Abel Olsen & Richard D. Smith, 2001. "Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 39-52.
    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. Havet, Nathalie & Morelle, Magali & Remonnay, Raphaël & Carrere, Marie-Odile, 2011. "Valuing the Benefit for Cancer Patients of Receiving Blood Transfusions at Home," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(03), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.
    3. Bobinac, Ana & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "GET MORE, PAY MORE? An elaborate test of construct validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates obtained through contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 158-168.
    4. repec:eee:ecolec:v:137:y:2017:i:c:p:47-55 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:spr:eujhec:v:18:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-016-0825-y is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Richard D. Smith, 2008. "Contingent valuation in health care: does it matter how the 'good' is described?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 607-617.
    7. 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.

    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:15:y:2006:i:3:p:281-293. 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.