Background: Several countries have now passed laws that place limitations on where smokers may smoke. A range of smoking-cessation treatments have become available, many of which have documented increased quit rates. Population surveys show that most smokers wish to quit, and most nonsmokers would prefer to reduce the prevalence of smoking in society. The strengths of these preferences, however, as measured by their willingness to pay (WTP), have not yet been investigated.
Objective: This study aims to identify variables that explain variations in people’s answers to WTP questions on smoking-cessation treatments.
Methods: A representative sample of the Norwegian population was asked their WTP in terms of an earmarked contribution to a public smokingcessation programme. A sub-group of daily smokers was, in addition, asked about their WTP for a hypothetical treatment that would remove their urge to smoke. The impact of variation in the question format (different opening bids) on stated WTP was compared with that of factors suggested by economic theory, such as quit-rate effectiveness, degree of addiction as measured by the 12-item Cigarette Dependence Scale (CDS-12), and degree of peer group influence as measured by the proportion of one’s friends who smoke.
Results: In both programmes, the most important determinant for explaining variations in WTP was the size of the opening bid. Differences in quit-rate effectiveness did not matter for people’s WTP for the smoking-cessation programme. Addiction, and having a small proportion of friends who smoke, were positively associated with smokers’ WTP to quit smoking.
Conclusion: Variations in WTP were influenced more by how the question was framed in terms of differences in opening bids, than by variables reflecting the quality (effectiveness) and need (addiction level) for the good in question. While the WTP method is theoretically attractive, the findings that outcomes in terms of different quit rates did not affect WTP, and that WTP answers can be manipulated by the chosen opening bid, should raise further doubts on the ability of this method to provide valid and reliable answers that reflect true preferences for health and healthcare.
EPHA. European smoking bans: evolution of the legislation [online]. Available from URL: www.epha.org/a/1941 [Accessed 2012 Aug 13]
Xenakis JG, Kinter ET, Ishak KJ, et al. A discrete-event simulation of smoking-cessation strategies based on varenicline pivotal trial data. Pharmacoeconomics 2011; 29: 497–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiell A, Gold L. If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation. Health Econ 2003; 12: 909–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd AJ. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ 2003; 12: 393–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beattie J, Covey J, Dolan P, et al. On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: part 1 — caveat investigator. J Risk Uncertain 1998; 17: 5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington DC: Resources for the Future, 1988Google Scholar
Herriges JA, Shogren JF. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manage 1996; 30: 112–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalhammar NO. An empirical note on willingness to pay and starting-point bias. Med Decis Making 1996; 16: 242–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamee P, Ternent L, Gbangou A, et al. A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game in contingent valuation method. Health Econ 2010; 19: 75–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane, Penguin, 2011Google Scholar
de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012; 21: 145–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan S, Dolan P. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: for better or worse? Eur J Health Econ 2004; 3: 199–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavem K. Association of willingness to pay with severity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, health status and other preference measures. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2002; 6: 542–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
Olsen JA, Donaldson C, Pereira J. The insensitivity of ‘willingness-to-pay’ to the size of the good: new evidence for health care. J Econ Psychol 2004; 25: 445–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobinac A, van Exel NJA, Rutten FFH, et al. Get more, pay more? An elaborate test of the validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates. J Health Econ 2012; 31(1): 158–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etter JF, Le Houezec J, Perneger TV. A self-administered questionnaire to measure dependence on cigarettes: the cigarette dependence scale. Neuropsychopharmacology 2003; 28: 359–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavem K, Rogeberg OJ, Olsen JA, et al. Properties of the Cigarette Dependence Scale and the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence in a representative sample of smokers in Norway. Addiction 2008; 103: 1441–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauth BV. Peer effects and selection effects on smoking among Canadian youth. Can J Econ 2005; 38: 735–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G, Phillips PR. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation versus standard gambles. Oxf Econ Pap 1995; 47: 676–95Google Scholar
Gyrd-Hansen D, Kjaer T, Nielsen JS. Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice? Health Econ 2012; 21(2): 101–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond PA, Hausman JA. On contingent valuation measurement of nonuse values. In: Hausman JA, editor. Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. North-Holland: Amsterdam, 1993Google Scholar