Willingness-to-pay and Demand Curves: a Comparison of Results Obtained Using Different Elicitation Formats

Overview

Journal Int J Health Care Finance Econ

Publisher Springer

Specialty Public Health

Date 2005 Dec 27

PMID 16378240

Citations 4

Authors

David K Whynes

Emma J Frew

Jane L Wolstenholme

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Health economists use "willingness-to-pay" to assess the prospective value of novel interventions. The technique remains controversial, not least with respect to the formats under which values are elicited. The paper analyses the results of a series of studies of the same intervention valued by the same population, in which different elicitation formats were employed. The findings support the hypothesis that data collected using different formats give rise to different demand curves, from which different inferences about demand elasticity, profitability and consumer surplus will be derived. Judgements as to the relative merits of rival interventions depend crucially upon whichever format has been used to evaluate each intervention.

Citing Articles

The link between past informal payments and willingness of the Hungarian population to pay formal fees for health care services: results from a contingent valuation study.

Baji P, Pavlova M, Gulacsi L, Farkas M, Groot W Eur J Health Econ. 2013; 15(8):853-67.

PMID: 23989982 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-013-0531-y.

In Brief: cost-effectiveness analyses in orthopaedics.

Vavken P, Bianchi T Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(8):2395-8.

PMID: 21442340 PMC: 3126967. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-1873-3.

Willingness to pay for social health insurance among informal sector workers in Wuhan, China: a contingent valuation study.

Barnighausen T, Liu Y, Zhang X, Sauerborn R BMC Health Serv Res. 2007; 7:114.

PMID: 17659084 PMC: 2065868. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-114.

A 'league table' of contingent valuation results for pharmaceutical interventions: a hard pill to swallow?.

Sach T, Smith R, Whynes D Pharmacoeconomics. 2007; 25(2):107-27.

PMID: 17249854 DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200725020-00004.

References

Donaldson C . Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: does 'ability to pay' preclude the use of 'willingness to pay'?. Soc Sci Med. 1999; 49(4):551-63. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00173-2. View

Mataria A, Donaldson C, Luchini S, Moatti J . A stated preference approach to assessing health care-quality improvements in Palestine: from theoretical validity to policy implications. J Health Econ. 2004; 23(6):1285-311. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.05.001. View

Dong H, Kouyate B, Cairns J, Sauerborn R . A comparison of the reliability of the take-it-or-leave-it and the bidding game approaches to estimating willingness-to-pay in a rural population in West Africa. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 56(10):2181-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00234-4. View

Birch S, Donaldson C . Valuing the benefits and costs of health care programmes: where's the 'extra' in extra-welfarism?. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 56(5):1121-33. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00101-6. View

Whynes D, Wolstenholme J, Frew E . Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales. Health Econ. 2004; 13(2):183-90. DOI: 10.1002/hec.809. View

Onwujekwe O, Chima R, Shu E, Nwagbo D, Okonkwo P . Hypothetical and actual willingness to pay for insecticide-treated nets in five Nigerian communities. Trop Med Int Health. 2001; 6(7):545-53. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3156.2001.00745.x. View

Onwujekwe O, Fox-Rushby J, Hanson K . Valuing the benefits of a health intervention using three different approaches to contingent valuation: re-treatment of mosquito bed-nets in Nigeria. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004; 9(2):67-75. DOI: 10.1258/135581904322987472. View

Whynes D, Frew E, Wolstenholme J . A comparison of two methods for eliciting contingent valuations of colorectal cancer screening. J Health Econ. 2003; 22(4):555-74. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00006-7. View

Olsen J, Smith R . Theory versus practice: a review of 'willingness-to-pay' in health and health care. Health Econ. 2001; 10(1):39-52. DOI: 10.1002/1099-1050(200101)10:1<39::aid-hec563>3.0.co;2-e. View

10.

Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Karlsson G . Outcome measurement in economic evaluation. Health Econ. 1996; 5(4):279-96. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199607)5:4<279::AID-HEC218>3.0.CO;2-J. View

11.

Liljas B, Blumenschein K . On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies. Health Policy. 2000; 52(1):53-70. DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8510(00)00067-1. View

12.

Dong H, Kouyate B, Cairns J, Mugisha F, Sauerborn R . Willingness-to-pay for community-based insurance in Burkina Faso. Health Econ. 2003; 12(10):849-62. DOI: 10.1002/hec.771. View

13.

Onwujekwe O, Hanson K, Fox-Rushby J . Who buys insecticide-treated nets? Implications for increasing coverage in Nigeria. Health Policy Plan. 2003; 18(3):279-89. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czg034. View

14.

Altman D, Bland J . Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ. 2003; 326(7382):219. PMC: 1125071. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7382.219. View

15.

Cookson R . Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Econ. 2003; 12(11):891-4. DOI: 10.1002/hec.847. View

16.

Frew E, Wolstenholme J, Whynes D . Willingness-to-pay for colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Cancer. 2001; 37(14):1746-51. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(01)00200-3. View

17.

Hammar H, Johansson-Stenman O . The value of risk-free cigarettes--do smokers underestimate the risk?. Health Econ. 2004; 13(1):59-71. DOI: 10.1002/hec.794. View

18.

Diener A, OBRIEN B, Gafni A . Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 1998; 7(4):313-26. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199806)7:4<313::aid-hec350>3.0.co;2-b. View

19.

Donaldson C, Birch S, Gafni A . The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes. Health Econ. 2002; 11(1):55-70. DOI: 10.1002/hec.642. View

20.

Mulcahy H, Farthing M, ODonoghue D . Screening for asymptomatic colorectal cancer. BMJ. 1997; 314(7076):285-91. PMC: 2125763. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7076.285. View