Literature DB >> 12898660

Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment.

Richard D Smith1.   

Abstract

Contingent valuation (CV) has been criticised for being too hypothetical, with expressed values bearing little relation to actual values. The magnitude of this divergence, however, depends upon how realistic and believable the contingent market is. This paper presents an overview of five key aspects in the construction of the contingent market: (i) scenario development and presentation; (ii) payment vehicle; (iii) expression of risk; (iv) time period of valuation; and (v) survey administration. CV studies in health care since 1985, totalling 111, are critically reviewed with respect to these five aspects. It is concluded that CV studies in health care have performed poorly in the construction, specification and presentation of the contingent market, and that there has been little, if any, improvement in this respect over the last 15 years. Suggestions are made concerning why this may be the case, and how the construction of the contingent market may be improved in future. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12898660     DOI: 10.1002/hec.755

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  34 in total

1.  Willingness to pay for dental fear treatment. Is supplying dental fear treatment socially beneficial?

Authors:  Bente Halvorsen; Tiril Willumsen
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-12

2.  Willingness-to-pay and demand curves: a comparison of results obtained using different elicitation formats.

Authors:  David K Whynes; Emma J Frew; Jane L Wolstenholme
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2005-12

Review 3.  A 'league table' of contingent valuation results for pharmaceutical interventions: a hard pill to swallow?

Authors:  Tracey H Sach; Richard D Smith; David K Whynes
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  In Brief: cost-effectiveness analyses in orthopaedics.

Authors:  Patrick Vavken; Thomas Bianchi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Adapting the CHEERS Statement for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Authors:  Sabina Sanghera; Emma Frew; Tracy Roberts
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Willingness to pay for health insurance among the elderly population in Germany.

Authors:  Jens-Oliver Bock; Dirk Heider; Herbert Matschinger; Hermann Brenner; Kai-Uwe Saum; Walter E Haefeli; Hans-Helmut König
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-12-20

7.  A Longitudinal Investigation of Willingness to Pay for Health Insurance in Germany.

Authors:  Jens-Oliver Bock; André Hajek; Hermann Brenner; Kai-Uwe Saum; Herbert Matschinger; Walter Emil Haefeli; Ben Schöttker; Renate Quinzler; Dirk Heider; Hans-Helmut König
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Cancer patients' willingness to pay for blood transfusions at home: results from a contingent valuation study in a French cancer network.

Authors:  Nathalie Havet; Magali Morelle; Raphaël Remonnay; Marie-Odile Carrere
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-06-10

9.  Willingness to pay for adverse drug event regulatory actions.

Authors:  Jacoline Bouvy; Just Weemers; Huub Schellekens; Marc Koopmanschap
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide.

Authors:  Emily Lancsar; Jordan Louviere
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.