Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework
- 232 Downloads
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.
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.
- 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
- 14.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005Google Scholar
- 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
- 21.McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments to value the benefits of health care [thesis]. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 2003: 1–290Google Scholar
- 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
- 27.Fieller EC. Some problems on interval estimation with discussion. J R Stat Soc 1954; 16: 175–188Google Scholar
- 28.Kennedy P. A guide to econometrics. Oxford: Blackwells, 1995Google Scholar
- 47.Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: RFF Press, 1989Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 51.Freeman AM. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1993Google Scholar
- 53.Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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