, Volume 22, Issue 11, pp 691–700 | Cite as

The Measurement of Contingent Valuation for Health Economics

  • Ahmed M. Bayoumi
Current Opinion


In health economics, contingent valuation is a method that elicits an individual’s monetary valuations of health programmes or health states. This article reviews the theory and conduct of contingent valuation studies, with suggestions for improving the future measurement of contingent valuation for health economics applications.

Contingent valuation questions can be targeted to any of the following groups: the general population, to value health insurance premiums for programmes; users of a health programme, to value the associated programme costs; or individuals with a disease, to evaluate health states. The questions can be framed to ask individuals how much they would pay to obtain positive changes in health status or avoid negative changes in health status (’willingness to pay’; WTP) or how much they would need to be paid to compensate for a decrease in health status or for foregoing an improvement in heath status (‘willingness to accept’; WTA). In general WTP questions yield more accurate and precise valuations than WTA questions. Payment card techniques, with follow-up bidding using direct interviews with visual aids, are well suited for small contingent valuation studies.

Several biases may be operative when assessing contingent valuation, including biases in the way participants are selected, the way in which the questions are posed, the way in which individuals interpret probabilities and value gains relative to losses, and the way in which missing or extreme responses are interpreted. An important aspect of all contingent valuation studies is an assessment of respondents’ understanding of the evaluation method and the valuation task. Contingent valuation studies should measure the potential influence of biases, the validity of contingent valuation tests as measures of QOL, and the reliability and responsiveness of responses.

Future research should address equity concerns associated with using contingent valuation and explore contingent valuation as a measure of utility for health states, particularly those that are minor or temporary.


Contingent Valuation Standard Gamble Contingent Valuation Study Contingent Valuation Question Health Economics Application 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Dr Bayoumi was supported by a Career Scientist Award from the Ontario HIV Treatment Network.


  1. 1.
    Bala MV, Mauskopf JA, Wood LL. Willingness to pay as a measure of health benefits. Pharmacoeconorrucs 1999; 15: 9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999; 47: 97–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ 1998; 7: 313–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ 2001; 10: 39–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McIntosh E, Donaldson C, Ryan M. Recent advances in the methods of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare: matching the art to the science. Pharmacceconomics 1999; 15: 357–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Brien B, Gafni A. When do the‘dollars’ make sense?: toward a conceptual framework for contingent valuation studies in health care. Mec Decis Making 1996; 16: 288–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Moo Decis Making 1998; 18: 568–80Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gold MR, Seigel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein Me, editors. Costeffectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits of publicly-provided health care: does ‘ability to pay’ preclude the use of ‘willingness to pay’? Soc Sci Moo 1999; 49: 551–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weinstein Me, Manning Jr WG. Theoretical issues in costeffectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1997; 16: 121–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 1993; 58: 4607–14Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value pubic goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1989Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirth RA, Bloom BS, Chernew ME, et al. Patient, physician, and payer perceptions and misperceptions of willingness to pay for diagnostic certainty. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 35–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olsen JA. Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method? Health Econ 1997; 6: 603–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liljas B, Blumenschein K. On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies. Health Policy 2000; 52: 53–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johannesson M, Blomquist GC, Blumenschein K, et al. Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses. J Risk Uncertain 1999; 18: 21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979; 47: 263–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bayoumi AM, Redelrreier DA. Decision analysis with cumilative prospect theory. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 404–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lundberg L, Johannesson M, Silverdahl M, et al. Quality of life, health-state utilities and willingness to pay in patients with psoriasis and atopic eczema. Br J Dermatol 1999; 141: 1067–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Onwujekwe O. Searching for a better willingness to pay elicitation method in rural Nigeria: the binary question with followup method versus the bidding game technique. Health Econ 2001; 10: 147–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dalmau-Matarrodona E. Alternative approaches to obtain optimal bid values in contingent valuation studies and to model protest zeros: estimating the determinants of individuals’ willingness to pay for home care services in day case surgery. Health Econ 2001; 10: 101–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krabbe PF, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 1641–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blumenschein K, Johannesson M. Relationship between quality of life instruments, health state utilities, and willingness to pay in patients with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Imminol 1998; 80: 189–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 593–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sorum PC. Measuring patient preferences by willingness to pay to avoid: the case of acute otitis media. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 27–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Corso PS, Hammitt JK, Graham JD. Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertain 2001; 23: 165–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith RD. The discrete-choice willingness-to-pay question format in health economics: should we adopt environmental guidelines? Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 194–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bala MV, Zarkin GA. Are QALYs an appropriate measure for valuing morbidity in acute diseases? Health Econ 2000; 9: 177–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inner City Health Research UnitSt Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Division of General MedicineSt Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations