Literature DB >> 25762183

The Subjective Well-Being Method of Valuation: An Application to General Health Status.

Timothy T Brown1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To introduce the subjective well-being (SWB) method of valuation and provide an example by valuing health status. The SWB method allows monetary valuations to be performed in the absence of market relationships. DATA SOURCES: Data are from the 1975-2010 General Social Survey. STUDY
DESIGN: The value of health status is determined via the estimation of an implicit derivative based on a happiness equation. Two-stage least-squares was used to estimate happiness as a function of poor-to-fair health status, annual household income adjusted for household size, age, sex, race, marital status, education, year, and season. Poor-to-fair health status and annual household income are instrumented using a proxy for intelligence, a temporal version of the classic distance instrument, and the average health status of individuals who are demographically similar but geographically separated. Instrument validity is evaluated. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Moving from good/excellent health to poor/fair health (1 year of lower health status) is equivalent to the loss of $41,654 of equivalized household income (2010 constant dollars) per annum, which is larger than median equivalized household income.
CONCLUSION: The SWB method may be useful in making monetary valuations where fundamental market relationships are not present. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Keywords:  Subjective well-being; happiness; health status; valuation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25762183      PMCID: PMC4693847          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12294

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  34 in total

1.  Do risk factors and health behaviours contribute to self-ratings of health?

Authors:  K Manderbacka; O Lundberg; P Martikainen
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  The reliability of self-assessed health status.

Authors:  Thomas F Crossley; Steven Kennedy
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Misremembering colostomies? Former patients give lower utility ratings than do current patients.

Authors:  Dylan M Smith; Ryan L Sherriff; Laura Damschroder; George Loewenstein; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.267

5.  Monetary valuation of informal care: the well-being valuation method.

Authors:  Bernard van den Berg; Ada Ferrer-I-Carbonell
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.046

6.  Developing methods that really do value the 'Q' in the QALY.

Authors:  Paul Dolan
Journal:  Health Econ Policy Law       Date:  2008-01

7.  Putting different price tags on the same health condition: re-evaluating the well-being valuation approach.

Authors:  Nattavudh Powdthavee; Bernard van den Berg
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2011-06-13       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Caring for and caring about: disentangling the caregiver effect and the family effect.

Authors:  Ana Bobinac; N Job A van Exel; Frans F H Rutten; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Karen B DeSalvo; Nicole Bloser; Kristi Reynolds; Jiang He; Paul Muntner
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-12-07       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Survival, functional limitations, and self-rated health in the NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study, 1992. First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Authors:  E L Idler; L B Russell; D Davis
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2000-11-01       Impact factor: 4.897

View more
  5 in total

1.  Returns on Investment in California County Departments of Public Health.

Authors:  Timothy T Brown
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Valuing the impact of self-rated health and instrumental support on life satisfaction among the chinese population.

Authors:  Chee Hon Chan; Anna Wong
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 4.135

3.  Valuation of health losses of women with multiple roles using a well-being valuation approach: Evidence from Japan.

Authors:  Narimasa Kumagai
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  A life satisfaction approach to valuing the impact of health behaviours on subjective well-being.

Authors:  Yipu Shi; Craig Joyce; Ron Wall; Heather Orpana; Christina Bancej
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Estimating the monetary value of health and capability well-being applying the well-being valuation approach.

Authors:  Sebastian Himmler; Job van Exel; Werner Brouwer
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2020-09-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.