Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T04:00:47.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of the payment vehicle in non-market valuations of a health care service: willingness-to-pay for an ambulance helicopter service

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2015

Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
Dorte Gyrd-Hansen*
Affiliation:
COHERE, Department of Business and Economics, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M, Denmark
*
*Correspondence to: Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, COHERE, Department of Business and Economics, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M, Denmark. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study analyses the role of the payment vehicle when conducting non-market valuations of health care services using stated preference methods. Based on a contingent valuation study conducted in Denmark encompassing more than 3400 respondents three important conclusions are drawn. Firstly, it is found that the valuation of a publicly financed ambulance helicopter service is higher than for an identical privately financed service. Secondly, the results suggest that the public premium is likely to be partly driven by altruistic preferences, and that some citizens value access to this type of service for all. An important driver is also perceptions of quality of services across the private and public sector. Finally, it is shown that exclusion of protest bidders is problematic and may bias welfare estimates. The take home message is that it is difficult to isolate the value of a good per se, and that analysts should take care in applying the payment vehicle that is likely to be applied in real life when valuing non-market goods. There has been little awareness of the importance of choice of payment vehicle in the literature to date.

Type
Articles
Information
Health Economics, Policy and Law , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, H. and Lindberg, G. (2009), ‘Benevolence and the value of road safety’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41: 286–293.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1989), ‘Giving with impure altruism; applications to charity and ricardian equivalence’, Journal of Political Economy, 97(6): 1447–1458.Google Scholar
Arana, J. E. and Leon, C. J. (2002), ‘Willingness to pay for health risk reduction in the context of altruism’, Health Economics, 11: 623–635.Google Scholar
Breman, A. (2006), ‘The Economics of Altruism, Paternalism and Self-Control’, PhD thesis, The Economic Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden.Google Scholar
Carson, R. T. and Groves, T. (2007), ‘Incentive and informational properties of preference questions’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 37: 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Blaeij, A., Florax, R. J. G. M., Rietvald, P. and Verhoef, E. (2003), ‘The value of statistical life in road safety: a meta-analysis’, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35: 973–986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dziegielewska, D. A. and Mendelsohn, R. (2007), ‘Does “No” mean “No”? A protest methodology’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 38: 71–87.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. F. and Anderson, G. D. (1987), ‘Overlooked biases in contingent valuation surveys: some considerations’, Land Economics, 63(2): 168–178.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. and Furby, L. (1988), ‘Measuring values: a conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1: 147–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gyrd-Hansen, D., Jensen, M. L. and Kjaer, T. (2014), ‘Framing the willingness-to-pay question: impact on response patterns and mean willingness to pay’, Health Economics, 23: 550–563.Google Scholar
Halstead, J. M., Luloff, A. E. and Stevens, T. H. (1992), ‘Protest bidders in contingent valuation’, Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21: 160–169.Google Scholar
Heberlein, T. A., Willson, M. A., Bishop, R. C. and Schaeffer, N. C. (2005), ‘Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Hultkrantz, L., Lindberg, G. and Andersson, C. (2006), ‘The value of improved road safety’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 32: 151–170.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, F., Johannesson, M. and Borgquist, L. (2007), ‘Is altruism paternalistic?’, The Economic Journal, 117: 761–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannesson, M., Johansson, P.-O. and O’Conor, R. M. (1996), ‘The value of private safety versus the value of public safety’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 13: 263–275.Google Scholar
Jones-Lee, M. V. (1991), ‘Altruism and the value of other people’s safety’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4: 213–219.Google Scholar
Jorgensen, B. S., Syme, G. J., Bishop, B. J. and Nancarrow, B. E. (1999), ‘Protest responses in contingent valuation’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 14(1): 131–150.Google Scholar
Martin-Lopez, B., Montes, C. and Benayas, J. (2008), ‘Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation: the meaning of numbers’, Conservation Biology, 22(3): 624–635.Google Scholar
Messer, K. D., Poe, G. L. and Schulze, W. D. (2013), ‘The value of private versus public risk and pure altruism: an experimental economics test’, Applied Economics, 45(9): 1089–1097.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, J. and Liebe, U. (2006), ‘Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: explaining their motivation’, Ecological Economics, 57(4): 583–594.Google Scholar
Olsen, J. A., Kidholm, K., Donaldson, C. and Shackley, P. (2004), ‘Willingness to pay for public health care: a comparison of two approaches’, Health Policy, 70: 217–228.Google Scholar
Pedersen, L. B., Kjaer, T. and Gyrd-Hansen, D. (2011), ‘The influence of information and private versus public provision on preferences for prostate cancer in Denmark: a willingness-to-pay study’, Health Policy, 101(3): 277–289.Google Scholar
Shogren, J. (1990), ‘The impact of self-protection and self-insurance on individual response to risk’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3: 191–204.Google Scholar
Smith, R. D. and Sach, T. C. (2010), ‘Contingent valuation: what needs to be done?’, Health Economics Policy and Law, 5: 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, M. and Johansson, M. V. (2010), ‘Willingness to pay for private and public road safety in stated preference studies: why the difference?’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42: 1205–1212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986), ‘Rational choice and the framing of decisions’, Journal of Business, 59: 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar