Valuing Informal Care Experience: Does Choice of Measure Matter?
- 470 Downloads
Well-being equations are often estimated to generate monetary values for non-marketed activities. In such studies, utility is often approximated by either life satisfaction or General Health Questionnaire scores. We estimate and compare monetary valuations of informal care for the first time in the UK employing both measures, using longitudinal data on well-being and informal care provision. The choice of well-being measure has some effect on the estimated parameters and resulting monetary valuations, but any differences are not statistically significant. Further research is needed to confirm the comparability of these measures if researchers are to continue to use them interchangeably.
KeywordsInformal care Compensating variation Subjective well-being Life-satisfaction GHQ
We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. We are also grateful to Hugh Gravelle, Aki Tsuchiya and other contributors to the 2009 Health Economists’ Study Group meeting in Sheffield for helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. The majority of the work was undertaken while one of the authors was funded by an MRC studentship. The Health Economics Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates (SGHD). The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the SGHD. Data from the British Household Panel Survey were supplied by the ESRC Data Archive. The usual disclaimer applies.
- Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
- Bédard, M., Koivuranta, A., & Stuckey, A. (2004). Health impact on caregivers of providing informal care to a cognitively impaired older adult: Rural versus urban settings. Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine: The Official Journal of the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, 9(1), 15–23.Google Scholar
- Brouwer, W. B. F., VanExel, N. J. A., Koopmanschap, M. A., & Rutten, F. F. H. (1999). The valuation of informal care in economic appraisal: A consideration of individual choice and societal costs of time. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 15(1), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
- de Meijer, C., Brouwer, W., Koopmanschap, M., van den Berg, B., & van Exel, J. (2010). The value of informal care–a further investigation of the feasibility of contingent valuation in informal caregivers. Health Economics, 19(7), 755–771.Google Scholar
- Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In R. David & R. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Gao, F., Luo, N., Thumboo, J., Fones, C., Li, S., & Cheung, Y. (2004). Does the 12-item general health questionnaire contain multiple factors and do we need them? Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2(1), 1–7; 7.Google Scholar
- Gardner, J., & Oswald, A. J. (2006). Do divorcing couples become happier by breaking up? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 169(2), 319–336.Google Scholar
- Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- McCloskey, D. N., & Ziliak, S. T. (1996). The standard error of regressions. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(1), 97–114.Google Scholar
- McNamee, P., & Stearns, S. C. (2003). Ageing, disability and long-term care expenditures. In A. Scott, A. Maynard, & R. Elliot (Eds.), Advances in health economics. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
- Mentzakis, E., Ryan, M., & McNamee, P. (2010). Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: Exploring preference heterogeneity. Health Economics (forthcoming). doi: 10.1002/hec.1656.
- Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. S. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. USA: Yale University Press.Google Scholar