PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 855–868 | Cite as

Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework

Some Considerations
Leading Article

Abstract

A great advantage of the stated preference discrete choice experiment (SPDCE) approach to economic evaluation methodology is its immense flexibility within applied cost-benefit analyses (CBAs). However, while the use of SPDCEs in healthcare has increased markedly in recent years there has been a distinct lack of equivalent CBAs in healthcare using such SPDCE-derived valuations. This article outlines specific issues and some practical suggestions for consideration relevant to the development of CBAs using SPDCE-derived benefits.

The article shows that SPDCE-derived CBA can adopt recent developments in cost-effectiveness methodology including the cost-effectiveness plane, appropriate consideration of uncertainty, the net-benefit framework and probabilistic sensitivity analysis methods, while maintaining the theoretical advantage of the SPDCE approach. The concept of a cost-benefit plane is no different in principle to the cost-effectiveness plane and can be a useful tool for reporting and presenting the results of CBAs.

However, there are many challenging issues to address for the advancement of CBA methodology using SPCDEs within healthcare. Particular areas for development include the importance of accounting for uncertainty in SPDCE-derived willingness-to-pay values, the methodology of SPDCEs in clinical trial settings and economic models, measurement issues pertinent to using SPDCEs specifically in healthcare, and the importance of issues such as consideration of the dynamic nature of healthcare and the resulting impact this has on the validity of attribute definitions and context.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor Mandy Ryan and Dr Sarah Wordsworth for comments on earlier drafts of the article and Professor Andy Briggs and Dr Luke Vale for related discussions to ongoing applied work in this area. The author is grateful to anonymous referees for providing valuable comments. The author has no relevant conflicts of interest and received no funding for the preparation of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Kleinman L, McIntosh E, Ryan M, et al. Willingness to pay for complete symptom relief of gastroesophogeal reflux disease. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1361–1366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McIntosh E, Ryan M. Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: implications of discontinuous preferences. J Econ Psychol 2002; 23: 367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ryan M, McIntosh E, Dean T, et al. Trade-offs between location and waiting time in the provision of elective surgery. J Public Health Med 2000; 22: 202–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McIntosh E, Donaldson C, Ryan M. Recent advances in the methods of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare: matching the art to the science. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 357–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanson K, McPake B, Nakamba P, et al. Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2005; 14: 687–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slothuus Skjoldborg U, Gyrd-Hansen D. Conjoint analysis: the cost variable: an Achilles’ heel? Health Econ 2003; 12: 479–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments in health economics: current practice and future prospects. Health Econ 2003; 2 (1): 55–64Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ 2004; 13: 901–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: a response to Ryan and Santos Silva. Health Econ 2004; 13: 919–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ryan M. Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (1). Health Econ 2004; 13: 909–912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ratcliffe J. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values: proceed with caution? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000 Winter; 16: 270–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Santos Silva JMC. Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (2). Health Econ 2004; 13: 913–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clarke P. Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach. J Health Econ 1998; 17: 767–787PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cookson R. Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Econ 2003; 12: 891–894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oliver A, Healey A, Donaldson C. Choosing the method to match the perspective: economic assessment and its implications for health services efficiency. Lancet 2002; 359: 1771–1774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. BMJ 2004; 328: 360–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Adamovicz WL, Louviere J, Swait J. Introduction to attribute based stated choice methods. Submitted to Resource Valuation Branch Damage Assessment Center, NOAA -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. 1998 Jan [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/socio/statedchoicemethods.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jun 20]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ryan M. Using willingness to pay to assess the benefits of assisted reproductive techniques. Health Econ 1996; 5: 543–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments to value the benefits of health care [thesis]. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 2003: 1–290Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Donaldson C, Currie G, Mitton C. Cost effectiveness analysis in health care: contradictions. BMJ 2002; 325: 891–894PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998; 7: 723–740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Louviere J, Burgess L, Street D, et al. Modeling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC). Working paper no. 04-005. Sydney (NSW): University of Technology, 2004Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 65S–80SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Polsky D, Glick H, Willke R, et al. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: a comparison of four methods. Health Econ 1997; 6: 243–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fieller EC. Some problems on interval estimation with discussion. J R Stat Soc 1954; 16: 175–188Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kennedy P. A guide to econometrics. Oxford: Blackwells, 1995Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 1979; 7: 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14: 339–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7: 595–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple format stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000; 9: 295–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Johnson FR, Desvousges WH, Ruby M, et al. Eliciting stated health preferences: an application to willingness to pay for longevity. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: Suppl. 2: 57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Magat WA, Viscusi WK, Huber J. Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 1988; 15: 395–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998 Apr; 3: 70–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, et al. Using maximum difference conjoint and visual analogue scaling to measure patients’ utility for a particular health state. J Res Pharm Econ 1998; 9: 83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Freeman JK, Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, et al. Assessing the need for student health services using maximum difference conjoint analysis. J Res Pharm Econ 1998; 9: 35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Anderson NH. An exchange on functional and conjoint measurement. Psychol Rev 1971; 77: 153–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chakraborty G, Ball D, Gaeth GJ, et al. The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares: a Monte Carlo simulation. J Bus Res 2002; 55: 237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reardon G, Pathak D. Segmenting the antihistamine market: an investigation of consumer preferences. J Health Care Mark 1990; 10: 23–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Boyle KJ. A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am J Agric Econ 2001; 83: 441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Huber J, Wittink DR, Fiedler JA, et al. The effectiveness of alternative elicitation procedures in predicting choice. J Mark Res 1993; 30: 105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Elrod T, Louviere JJ, Davey KS. An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. J Mark Res 1992; 29: 368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Morey ER, Rowe RD, Watson M. A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic salmon fishing. Am J Agric Econ 1993; 75: 578–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ryan M, Skatun D. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ 2004; 13: 397–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Small KA, Rosen HS. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 1981; 49: 105–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: RFF Press, 1989Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ryan M, Gerard K. Using choice experiments to value health care programmes: where are we and where should we go? [abstract]. Third International Health Economics Association Conference; 2001 Jul 22–25; YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ruby MC, Johnson FR, Mathews KE. Just say no: opt-out alternatives and anglers’ stated-preferences. Technical working paper no. T-9801 R. Durham (NC): Triangle Economic Research, 1999Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hanemann WM. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 1984; 66: 332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Freeman AM. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1993Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Q J Econ 1991; 106: 1039–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Roe B, Boyle KJ, Teisl MF. Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. J Environ Econ Manage 1996; 31: 145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pearmain D, Swanson J, Kroes E, et al. Stated preference techniques: a guide to practice. Hague: Steer Davis Gleave and Hague Consulting Group, 1991Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Johnson FR, Desvousges WH. Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. J Environ Econ Manage 1997; 34: 79–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Carson RT, Louviere J, Anderson P, et al. Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters 1994; 5: 351–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wathieu L. Consumer habituation. Manage Sci 2004; 50: 587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bergland O, Magnussen K, Navrud S. Benefit transfer: testing for accuracy and reliability. Sixth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists; 1995 Jun; UmeaGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion paper no. 138. York: University of York, 1995Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, et al. Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am J Agric Econ 2002; 84: 161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Blackorby C, Donaldson D. The case against the use of the sum of compensating variations in cost-benefit analysis. Can J Econ 1990; 23: 471–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9 (14): 1–218PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Health, Health Economics Research CentreUniversity of OxfordHeadington, OxfordUK

Personalised recommendations