Use, option and externality values: are contingent valuation studies in health care mis-specified?
A general population sample of Australian respondents completed a contingent valuation (CV) survey that asked them to value six scenarios. These varied according to whether the scenario was seeking to elicit: (i) use value; (ii) externality value; (iii) option value; or (iv) a combination. Results indicate that use plus externality and|or option value was significantly greater than use value alone. As CV studies in health (care) overwhelmingly focus on use value alone - often implicitly through study design rather than explicitly - this raises the possibility of mis-specification in CV research in health (care). The implications for CV in health (care) are considered. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume (Year): 16 (2007)
Issue (Month): 8 ()
|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.:
- Richard D. Smith, 2001. "The relative sensitivity of willingness-to-pay and time-trade-off to changes in health status: an empirical investigation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(6), pages 487-497.
- Smith, Richard D., 2005. "Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 515-529, May.
- 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.