Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:38:18.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision makers' and scientists' opinion about contingent valuation and choice experiments for measuring willingness to pay in health care: Results from a survey in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2006

Oliver H. Günther  and
Hans-Helmut König
Oliver H. Günther
Affiliation:
University of Leipzig
Hans-Helmut König
Affiliation:
University of Leipzig
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Assessment of willingness to pay (WTP) by contingent valuation (CV) and choice experiments (CE) is increasingly performed in economic evaluation of health care. However, the question of whether the methods for measuring WTP are acceptable to decision makers and scientists has remained largely unacknowledged. The aim of this study was to learn more about decision makers' and scientists' opinion concerning these methods.

Methods: An expert group developed a questionnaire consisting of key items that may influence the opinion about CV and CE according to the constructs “attitude toward behavior,” “subjective norm,” and “behavioral intention” as defined by the Theory of Reasoned Action by Ajzen and Fishbein. In a survey, seventy-seven decision makers representing key institutions in the German healthcare system and forty-two scientists in health economics completed the questionnaire.

Results: Scientists and decision makers in particular did not show a high intention to use methods for measuring WTP. Skepticism regarding precision of the methods and subjects' capability to imagine paying an amount of money for a certain health commodity were stated along with the assertion that the hypothetical decision-making scenario was rather a distant reality. Nevertheless, the majority of scientists and decision makers did not state rejection of the methods.

Conclusions: Increasing the probability of using methods for measuring WTP in health care, the hypothetical scenarios should be made more realistic and payment vehicles should be used to help patients relate payment to a real health benefit. Moreover, an intensive discussion on the potential usefulness of CV/CE without excluding ethical concerns in comparison to existing alternatives has to be resumed.

Keywords

Willingness to payChoice experimentsContingent valuationCost-benefit analysis
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 351 - 361
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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

Ajzen I, Fishbein M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall;
Baron J, Greene J. 1996 Determinants of insensitivity to quantity on valuation of public goods: Contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability and prominence. J Exp Psychol. 2: 106– 125.Google Scholar
Bundesministerium für Gesundheit und soziale Sicherung. 2004. Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung. Available at: http://www.bmgs.bund.de/deu/gra/datenbanken/gkv/4504.cfm. Accessed August 2005.
Cookson R. 2003 Willingness to pay methods in health care: A sceptical view. Health Econ. 12: 891– 894.Google Scholar
Converse JM, Presser S. 1986. Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Beverly Hills: Sage;
Deutsche Koordinierungsstelle für Gesundheitswissenschaften. 2004 Who is who in public health. Available at: http://www.medsoz.uni-freiburg.de/dkgw/whoiswho/recherche.htm. Accessed August 2005.
Drummond M, Jonsson B, Rutten F. 1997 The role of economic evaluation in the pricing and reimbursement of medicines. Health Policy. 40: 199– 215.Google Scholar
European Observatory on Health Care. Health care systems in transition: Germany 2000. 2000. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/document/e68952.pdf. Accessed August 2005.
Fisher RJ. 1993 Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J Consumer Res. 20: 303– 315.Google Scholar
Gress S, Niebuhr D, Rothgang H, Wasem J. 2005 Criteria and procedures for determining benefit packages in health care. a comparative perspective. Health Policy. 73: 78– 91.Google Scholar
Hair JF, Tatham R, Anderson R, Black W. 1988. Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall;
Hanley N. 2001 Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy making. Environ Plan C. 19: 103– 118.Google Scholar
Hanley N, Ryan M, Wright R. 2003 Estimating the monetary value of health care: Lessons from environmental economics. Health Econ. 12: 3– 16.Google Scholar
Hoffmann C, Graf von der Schulenburg JM. 2000 The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making. A European survey. The EUROMET group. Health Policy. 52: 179– 192.Google Scholar
Klose T. 1999 The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 47: 97– 123.Google Scholar
Lancsar E, Savage E. 2004 Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: Inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ. 13: 901– 907.Google Scholar
O'Brien B, Gafni A. 1996 When do the “dollars” make sense? Toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health Care. Med Decis Making. 16: 288– 299.Google Scholar
Olsen JA, Smith RD. 2001 Theory versus practice: A review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health Care. Health Econ. 10: 39– 52.Google Scholar
Ryan M. 2004 A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Econ. 13: 291– 296.Google Scholar
Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. 2005 ‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits. Health Econ. 14: 609– 619.Google Scholar
Ryan M, Gerard K. 2003 Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: Current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2: 55– 64.Google Scholar
Ryan M, San Miguel F. 2003 Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. Health Econ. 12: 295– 307.Google Scholar
Ryan M, Skatun D. 2004 Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ. 13: 397– 402.Google Scholar
Wasem J, Hessel F, Kerim-Sade C. 2001 Methods of comparative economic evaluations of therapies and for rational allocation of resources across sectors of health care systems—introduction, advantages, risks. Psychiatr Prax. 28: S12– S20.Google Scholar