IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper

The information content of the WTP-WTA gap : An empirical analysis among severely ill patients

  • Nathalie Havet

    ()

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'analyse et de théorie économique - ENS Lyon - École normale supérieure - Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Etienne - PRES Université de Lyon - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Magali Morelle

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'analyse et de théorie économique - ENS Lyon - École normale supérieure - Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Etienne - PRES Université de Lyon - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre Léon Bérard - CRLCC Léon Bérard)

  • Alexis Penot

    (GATE Lyon Saint-Étienne - Groupe d'analyse et de théorie économique - ENS Lyon - École normale supérieure - Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Etienne - PRES Université de Lyon - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Raphaël Remonnay

    (Centre Léon Bérard - CRLCC Léon Bérard)

Large disparities between willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness-to-accept (WTA) are commonly encountered in empirical studies and raise some important controversies. Nevertheless, the relationships between WTA and WTP can help understand not only how a service is valued but also how it can be substituted or how its loss can be resisted. The purpose of this study was to examine cancer patients' preferences for blood transfusion setting from the perspective of WTA and WTP. A contingent valuation (CV) survey was administered to 139 patients receiving transfusions either at home or in the hospital. While few patients (6%) gave WTP protest responses, the WTA approach generated more protest responses (18%). The WTA-WTP discrepancy was confirmed. One in four of the patients reported that no amount was deemed sufficient to compensate for the renunciation of their home BT management. The main determinants of WTP were significantly different from WTA predictors. Our results suggest that individuals' strategies towards constructing WTP and WTA differ in terms of determinants, reasoning, use of information and economic rationality. They give empirical evidence on the usefulness to elicit both WTP and WTA responses in healthsurveys to help understand the economic evaluation of health technology assessment and care organization.

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: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00697762/document
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by HAL in its series Working Papers with number halshs-00697762.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 16 May 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00697762
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00697762
Contact details of provider: Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/

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. Natalia N. Borisova & Allen C. Goodman, 2003. "Measuring the value of time for methadone maintenance clients: willingness to pay, willingness to accept, and the wage rate," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 323-334.
  2. Marie-Odile Carrère & Nathalie Havet & Magali Morelle & Raphaël Remonnay, 2012. "Cancer Patients' Willingness to Pay for Blood Transfusion at Home: Results from a contingent valuation study in a French cancer network," Post-Print halshs-00642497, HAL.
  3. 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.
  4. Bishai, D. & Sindelar, J. & Ricketts, E.P. & Huettner, S. & Cornelius, L. & Lloyd, J.J. & Havens, J.R. & Latkin, C.A. & Strathdee, S.A., 2008. "Willingness to pay for drug rehabilitation: Implications for cost recovery," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 959-972, July.
  5. Bradley Jorgensen & Geoffrey Syme & Brian Bishop & Blair Nancarrow, 1999. "Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 131-150, July.
  6. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
  7. A Diener & B O'Brien & A Gafni, 1997. "Health Care Contingent Valuation Studies: A review and classification of the literature," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1997-07, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
  8. Raphaël Remonnay & Nathalie Havet & Magali Morelle & Marie-Odile Carrère, 2008. "Analyzing the determinants of willingness-to-pay values for testing the validity of the contingent valuation method. Application to home care compared to hospital care," Working Papers 0820, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique (GATE), Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Université Lyon 2, Ecole Normale Supérieure.
  9. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-47, June.
  10. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 2002. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 426-447, November.
  11. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Staff General Research Papers 1501, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  12. 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.
  13. B. Van den Berg & H. Bleichrodt & L. Eeckhoudt, 2005. "The economic value of informal care: a study of informal caregivers' and patients' willingness to pay and willingness to accept for informal care," Post-Print hal-00200697, HAL.
  14. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
  15. Kolstad, Charles D. & Guzman, Rolando M., 1999. "Information and the Divergence between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 66-80, July.
  16. Rolando Guzman & Charles Kolstad, 2007. "Researching Preferences, Valuation and Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(3), pages 465-487, July.
  17. Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 1997. "Does "process utility" exist? A case study of willingness to pay for laparoscopic cholecystectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 699-707, March.
  18. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2007. "Starting-point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00175925, HAL.
  19. Brown, Thomas C. & Gregory, Robin, 1999. "Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 323-335, March.
  20. Willig, Robert D, 1976. "Consumer's Surplus without Apology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(4), pages 589-97, September.
  21. Cam Donaldson & Andrew Jones & Tracy Mapp & Jan Abel Olson, 1998. "Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 667-677.
  22. Jan Abel Olsen, 1997. "Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(6), pages 603-612.
  23. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July.
  24. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 203-35, December.
  25. Elisabetta Strazzera & Riccardo Scarpa & Pinuccia Calia & Guy Garrod & Kenneth Willis, 2003. "Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 133-138.
  26. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-77, June.
  27. Biel, Anders & Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Nilsson, Andreas, 2011. "The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap Revisited: The Role of Emotions and Moral Satisfaction," Working Papers in Economics 497, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
  28. Sayman, Serdar & Onculer, Ayse, 2005. "Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA-WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 289-312, April.
  29. Donaldson, Cam, 1999. "Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: does 'ability to pay' preclude the use of 'willingness to pay'?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 551-563, August.
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:hal:wpaper:halshs-00697762. 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: (CCSD)

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.