Examining the Preferences of Health Care Providers: An application to hospital consultants

  • Anthony Scott
  • Cristina Ubach
  • Fiona French
  • Gillian Needham
Part of the The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources book series (ENGO, volume 11)

The aim of this chapter is to show how discrete choice experiments (DCEs) can be applied to examine the preferences of health care providers. Health care providers comprise health care organisations and health professionals employed within them. Health professionals make decisions about their supply of labour in addition to clinical decisions. A key policy issue across many developed and developing countries is shortages of health professionals, particularly doctors and nurses. Although a number of policies are being introduced and have been suggested to reduce these shortages, there is little empirical evidence on what factors influence the labour market behaviour of doctors and nurses. Evidence on the relative impact of pay and remuneration on job choices and labour supply has shown that pecuniary factors do matter, but that their effect may be moderate. This raises the issue of what non-pecuniary job characteristics might be altered by policy to increase recruitment and retention. Existing “revealed preference” administrative and survey data do not collect good information on these non-pecuniary job characteristics. DCEs are a method that can be used to inform this issue (Scott, 2001). This chapter focuses on the labour market decisions of hospital consultants in the UK.

Keywords

Fatigue Income Rosen Marin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blair, M. 2002. Review body on doctors’ and dentists’ remuneration. Thirty-first report. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  2. Booth, A. and Francesconi, M. 1999. Job mobility in 1990s Britain: does gender matter? Working papers of the Institute for Social and Economic Research. Colchester: University of Essex.Google Scholar
  3. Bradley, M. 1991. User’s manual for SPEED version 2.1 sated preference experiment editor and designer. The Hague: Hague Consulting Group.Google Scholar
  4. Carlsson, F. and Martinsson, P. 2003. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Economics, vol 12, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Department of Health. 2001. The NHS Plan. Proposal for a new approach to the consultant contract. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
  6. Ekeland, I., Heckman, J.J. and Nesheim, L. 2002. Identifying hedonic models. The American Economic Review, vol 92, 304–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elliot, R., Mavromaras, K., Scott, A., Bell, D., der Pol, M. and Gerova, V. 2002. Labour markets and NHS Scotland. Final Report to Scottish Executive Health Department, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  8. Gronberg, T.J. and Reed, W.R. 1994. Estimating workers marginal willingness to pay for job attributes using duration data. Journal of Human Resources, vol 29, 911–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herzog, H.W. and Schlottmann, A.M. 1990. Valuing risk in the workplace: market price, willingness to pay, and the optimal provision of safety. Review of Economics and Statistics, vol 72, 463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kniesner, T.J. and Leeth, J.D. 1991. Compensating wage differentials for fatal injury risk in Australia, Japan, and the United States. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol 4, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lloyd, A.J. 2003. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Economics, vol 12, 393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manski C.F. and McFadden D. (eds). 1977. Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Marin, A. and Psacharopoulos, G. 1982. The reward for risk in the labour market: evidence from the United Kingdom and a reconciliation with other studies. Journal of Political Economy, vol 90, 827–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McFadden, D. 1974a. The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, vol 3, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McFadden, D. 1974b. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Frontiers in Econometrics. Zarembka, P. (ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Peitz, M. 1995. Utility maximisation in models of discrete choice. Economics Letters, vol 49, 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Propper, C. 1995. The disutility of time spent on UK National Health Service waiting lists. Journal of Human Resources, vol 30 (4), 677–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ratcliffe, J. 2000. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness to pay: proceed with caution? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol 16, 270–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosen, S. 1986. The theory of equalising differences. In: Handbook of Labor Economics, vol 1. Ashenfelter, O. and Layard, R. (eds). Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp 641–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ryan, M. and Gerard, K. 2002. Using discrete choice experiments in health economics: moving forward. In: Advances in Health Economics. Scott, A., Maynard, A. and Elliott, R. (eds). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Scott, A. 2001. Eliciting GPs’ preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics. Journal of Health Economics, vol 20, 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scott, A. 2002. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. Journal of Economic Psychology, vol 23, 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Skjoldborg, U.S. and Gyrd-Hansen, D. 2003. Conjoint analysis. The cost variable: an Achilles’ heel? Health Economics, vol 12, 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Truong, T.P. and Hensher, D.A. 1985. Measurement of travel time values and opportunity cost from a discrete choice model. The Economic Journal, vol 95, 438–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Viscusi, W.K. 1993. The value of risks to life and health. Journal of Economic Literature, vol 31, 1912–1946.Google Scholar
  26. Zwerina, K., Huber, J. and Kuhfeld, W. 1996. A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Durham, NC: Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.Google Scholar
  27. M. Ryan, K. Gerard and M. Amaya-Amaya (eds.), Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care, 153–171.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony Scott
    • 1
  • Cristina Ubach
    • 2
  • Fiona French
    • 3
  • Gillian Needham
    • 3
  1. 1.Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social ResearchThe University of MelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Consorcio para el Desarrollo de Tecnologia Avanzada de Imagen MedicaSpain
  3. 3.NHS Education for ScotlandUK

Personalised recommendations