IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Willingness-to-Pay for Parallel Private Health Insurance: Evidence from Laboratory Experiment

Listed author(s):
  • Neil Buckley


    (Department of Economics, York University)

  • Katherine Cuff


    (Department of Economics, McMaster University)

  • Jeremiah Hurley


    (Department of Economics, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University)

  • Logan McLeod


    (Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Public Health University of Alberta)

  • Robert Nuscheler


    (Department of Economics, University of Augsburg)

  • David Cameron

    (Department of Economics, McMaster University, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University)

Debate over the effects of public versus private health care financing has been, and continues to be, active in both academic outlets and policy circles. Theoretical literature on parallel health care financing is often built on untested behavioural assumptions and the empirical evidence generally depends upon the institutional details of the specific health care systems under analysis. This paper contributes to the literature on parallel health care finance by developing and executing a revealed preference laboratory experiment based on the theoretical model of parallel health care finance in Cuff et al. (2008). The theoretical model involves individuals in the labour force with varying severities of illness who demand health care from a limited supply of health care resources. Health care resources are purchased by the public sector and rationed free of charge to individuals, or purchased by individuals through a private insurance market. The general theoretical model is converted into a discrete experimental representation of a large-scale economy where individuals are price takers, the probability of receiving public health care is exogenous and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for private health insurance is elicited from subjects. The experimental design includes two within-subject factors based on the theoretical model: the public sector rationing rule (rationing based on need or severity versus rationing based on a random allocation) and the probability of being publicly treated (high versus low). The experimental design also includes two between-subjects treatments based on the frame of the experiment (neutral frame versus health frame) and on the distribution of private health insurance prices (high prices versus low prices). The results show the public system's allocation rule and the probability of receiving health care from the public system both significantly affect an individual's WTP for private health insurance in the predicted direction, although the WTP values tend to be above the actual theoretical predictions. When the public system allocates health care based on need, the average WTP is lower than under random allocation. A higher probability of receiving health care from the public system elicits a lower WTP regardless of how the public system allocates health care. It is also found that when the public system allocates health care based on need, the WTPs are significantly higher under a neutral frame than a health frame.

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:
File Function: First version, 2010
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada in its series Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series with number 2010-02.

in new window

Date of creation: 2010
Handle: RePEc:hpa:wpaper:201002
Contact details of provider: Postal:
CRL Building, 282, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1

Phone: (905) 525-9140, extension 22122
Fax: (905) 546-5211
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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.:

in new window

  1. Aki Tsuchiya & Paul Dolan, 2009. "Equality of what in health? Distinguishing between outcome egalitarianism and gain egalitarianism," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 147-159.
  2. Propper, Carol, 2000. "The demand for private health care in the UK," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 855-876, November.
  3. Karni, Edi & Safra, Zvi, 1987. ""Preference Reversal' and the Observability of Preferences by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 675-685, May.
  4. Besley, Timothy & Hall, John & Preston, Ian, 1999. "The demand for private health insurance: do waiting lists matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 155-181, May.
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:hpa:wpaper:201002. 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: (Lyn Sauberli)

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.