Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 99–111 | Cite as

Understanding consumer preferences in the context of managed competition

Evidence from a choice experiment in Colombia
  • Antonio J. Trujillo
  • Fernando Ruiz
  • John F. P. Bridges
  • Jeannette L. Amaya
  • Christine Buttorff
  • Angélica M. Quiroga
Original Research Article



In many countries, health insurance coverage is the primary way for individuals to access care. Governments can support access through social insurance programmes; however, after a certain period, governments struggle to achieve universal coverage. Evidence suggests that complex individual behaviour may play a role.


Using a choice experiment, this research explored consumer preferences for health insurance in Colombia. We also evaluated whether preferences differed across consumers with differing demographic and health status factors.


A household field experiment was conducted in Bogotá in 2010. The sample consisted of 109 uninsured and 133 low-income insured individuals. Each individual evaluated 12 pair-wise comparisons of hypothetical health plans. We focused on six characteristics of health insurance: premium, out-of-pocket expenditure, chronic condition coverage, quality of care, family coverage and sick leave. A main effects orthogonal design was used to derive the 72 scenarios used in the choice experiment. Parameters were estimated using conditional logit models. Since price data were included, we estimated respondents’ willingness to pay for characteristics.


Consumers valued health benefits and family coverage more than other attributes. Additionally, differences in preferences can be exploited to increase coverage. The willingness to pay for benefits may partially cover the average cost of providing them.


Policy makers might be able to encourage those insured via the subsidized system to enrol in the next level of the social health insurance scheme through expanding benefits to family members and expanding the level of chronic condition coverage.



This project was financed by Asocajas, Fundación Corona and Gestar Salud as a part of the project “New Strategies for Health Universalization in Colombia”. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.


  1. 1.
    Wagner AK, Graves AJ, Reiss SK, et al. Access to care and medicines, burden of health care expenditures, and risk protection: results from the World Health Survey. Amsterdam: Health Policy, 2010Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hadley J. Sicker and poorer — the consequences of being uninsured: a review of the research on the relationship between health insurance, medical care use, health, work, and income. Med Care Res Rev 2003; 60(2 Suppl.): 3S–75S; discussion 76S-112SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Institute of Medicine. America’s uninsured crisis: consequences for health and health care. Consensus report, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2010 Jun 3]
  4. 4.
    Giedion U, Uribe MV. Colombia’s universal health insurance system. Health Aff (Millwood), 2009; 28(3): 853–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amaya Lara JL, Ruiz Gómez F. Determining factors of catastrophic health spending in Bogota, Colombia. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 2011; 11(2): 83–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trujillo A, Portillo J, Vernon J. The impact of subsidized health insurance for the poor: evaluating the Colombian experience using propensity score matching. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 2005; 5(3): 211–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trujillo A, McCalla D. Are Colombian sickness funds cream-skimming enrollees? An analysis with suggestions for policy improvement. J Policy Anal Manage 2004; 23(4): 873–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glassman AL, Escobar M-L, Giuffrida A, et al. From few to many: ten years of health insurance expansion in Colombia. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank-The Brooking Institution Press, 2009Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trujillo A. Medical care use and selection in a social health insurance with an equalization fund: evidence from Colombia. Health Econ 2003; 12(3): 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chakraborty G, Ettenson R, Gaeth G. How consumers choose health insurance. J Health Care Market 1994; 14: 21–33Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Royalty AB, Solomon N. Health plan choice: price elasticities in managed competition settings. J Hum Resour 1999; 34(1): 1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kerssens JJ, Groenewegen PP. Consumer preferences in social health insurance. Eur J Health Econ 2005; 50: 8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker K, Zweifel P. Age and choice in health insurance. Patient 2008; 1:27–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Telser H, Zweifel P. Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Econ 2002; 11: 129–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harris KM. Can high quality overcome consumer resistance to restricted provider access? Evidence from a health plan choice experiment. Health Serv Res 2002; 37(3): 551–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002; 37(6): 1681–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schut FT, Gress S, Wasem J. Consumer price sensitivity and social health insurance choice in Germany and the Netherlands. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 2003; 3: 117–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van den Berg B, Van Dommelen P, Stam P, et al. Preferences and choices for care and health insurance. Soc Sci Med 2008; 66: 2448–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vroomen JM, Zweifel P. Preferences for health insurance and health status: does it matter whether you are Dutch or German? Eur J Health Econ 2011; 12(1): 87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol Rev 1927; 34: 273–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 1966; 74: 132–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Manski CF. The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis 1977; 8: 229–54Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McFadden D. Conditional Logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zaremba Paul, editor. Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press, 1974: 105–42Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bridges JFP. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2(4): 213–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. Epub 2010 Dec 19Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Booske BC, Sainfort F, Schoofs HA. Eliciting consumer preferences for health plans. Health Serv Res 1999; 34(8): 839–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gyrd-Hansen D, Slothuus U. The citizen’s preferences for financing public health care: a Danish survey. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 2002; 2: 25–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Market Res 1996; 33(3): 307–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Street DJ, Burgess L. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley-Interscience, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bridges J, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. A checklist for conjoint analysis applications in health: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task-force. Value Health 2011; 14(4): 403–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5(5): 1–186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chrzan K, Orme B. An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Sequim (WA): Sawtooth Software, Inc., 2000Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Louviere J, Woodworth G. Source design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. J Market Res 1983; 20(4): 350–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sandor Z, Wedel M. Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers’ prior beliefs. J Market Res 2001; 38: 430–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kanninen BJ. Optimal design for multinomial choice experiments. J Market Res 2002; 39(2): 214–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Burgess L. Discrete choice experiments [computer software]. Sydney: Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Technology, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Nov 1]Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cendex. Encuesta Nacional de Salud Colombia 2007. Ministerio de la Protección Social, Colciencias, Javegraf, 2009Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stata Corporation. Stata statistical software: version 10. Reference volumes. College Station (TX): STATA Corporation, 2008Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. Madison (WI): Research Publishers LLC, 2006Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Slothuus Skjoldborg U, Gyrd-Hansen D. Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles’ heel? Health Econ 2003 Jun 1; 12(6): 479–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Howard K, Salkeld G. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value Health 2009; 12(2): 354–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio J. Trujillo
    • 1
  • Fernando Ruiz
    • 2
  • John F. P. Bridges
    • 1
  • Jeannette L. Amaya
    • 2
  • Christine Buttorff
    • 1
  • Angélica M. Quiroga
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of International Health, Health SystemsJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Cendex, Pontificia Universidad JaverianaBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations