IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00675157.html

Using respondents' uncertainty scores to mitigate hypothetical bias in community-based health insurance studies

Author

Listed:
  • Hermann Pythagore Pierre Donfouet

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu

    (LEMNA - Laboratoire d'économie et de management de Nantes Atlantique - IEMN-IAE Nantes - Institut d'Économie et de Management de Nantes - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises - Nantes - UN - Université de Nantes)

  • Éric Malin

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Community-based health insurance has been implemented in several developing countries to help the poor to gain access to adequate health-care services. Assessing what the poor are willing to pay is of paramount importance for policymaking. The contingent valuation method, which relies on a hypothetical market, is commonly used for this purpose. But the presence of the hypothetical bias that is most often inherent in this method tends to bias the estimates upward and compromises policymaking. This paper uses respondents' uncertainty scores in an attempt to mitigate hypothetical bias in communitybased health insurance in one rural setting in Cameroon. Uncertainty scores are often employed in single dichotomous choice surveys. An originality of the paper is to use such an approach in a double-bounded dichotomous choice survey. The results suggest that this instrument is effective at decreasing the mean WTP.

Suggested Citation

  • Hermann Pythagore Pierre Donfouet & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Éric Malin, 2013. "Using respondents' uncertainty scores to mitigate hypothetical bias in community-based health insurance studies," Post-Print halshs-00675157, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00675157
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-011-0369-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    2. Buckell, John & White, Justin S. & Shang, Ce, 2020. "Can incentive-compatibility reduce hypothetical bias in smokers’ experimental choice behavior? A randomized discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    3. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    4. Christian Kronborg & Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Anders Fournaise & Christel Nøhr Kronborg, 2017. "User Fees in General Practice: Willingness to Pay and Potential Substitution Patterns—Results from a Danish GP Patient Survey," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 615-624, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00675157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.