Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing community values in health care: Is the ‘Willingness to pay’ method feasible?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper an economics approach to assessing community values in health care priority setting is examined. The approach is based on the concept of ‘willingness to pay’ (WTP). Eighty two parents were interviewed with regard to three aspects of provision of child health services. For each aspect a choice of two courses of action was presented. Parents were asked which course of action they preferred and what was the maximum amount of money they would be prepared to pay for this rather than their less preferred option. WTP responses are acceptable to the majority of respondents and appear to ‘behave’ in accordance witha priori expectations. A method of assessing the influence of ability to pay on preferences and WTP is outlined. Preferences and WTP do not appear to have been unduly distorted by ability to pay. Use of WTP data does have the potential to provide health care purchasers and providers with information on intensity as well as direction of the preferences of members of the community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scottish Office Home and Health Department (1991).Framework for Action: National Health Service in Scotland, HMSO, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  2. NHS Management Executive (1992).Local Voices: Involving the Local Community in Purchasing Decisions, NHS Management Executive.

  3. Pollock, A. and Pfeffer, N. (1993). Doors of perception.Health Services Journal 2 September,

  4. Shackley, P. and Ryan, M. (1995). Involving consumers in health care decision-making.Health Care Analysis 3, 196–204.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Johannesson, M., Aberg, H., Agreus, L., Borgquist, L. and Jonsson, B. (1991). Cost-benefit analysis of non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension.Journal of Internal Medicine 230, 307–312.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Donaldson, C. (1990). Willingness to pay for publicly provided goods: a possible measure of benefit?Journal of Health Economics 9, 103–118.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bowling, A., Jacobson, B. and Southgate, L. (1993). Health service priorities: explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals in an Inner London health district.Social Science and Medicine 37, 851–857.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Torrance, G. W. (1986). Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review.Journal of Health Economics 5, 1–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Consumers Association (1995). Which? What makes a good GP?Which, June, 18.

  10. Miedzybrodzka, Z., Semper, J., Shackley, P., Abdalla, M. and Donaldson, C. (1995). Stepwise or couple antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis? Women’s preferences and willingness to pay.Journal of Medical Genetics 32, 282–283.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Donaldson, C., Shackley, P., Abdalla, M. and Miedzybrodzka, Z. (1995). Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis.Health Economics 4, 439–452.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Evans, R. G. and Wolfson, A. D. (1980). Faith, hope and Charity: health care in the utility function. Department of Economics, University of British Columbia and Department of Health Administration, University of Toronto, unpublished paper.

  13. Evans, R. G. (1984).Strained Mercy: the Economics of Canadian Health Care, Butterworth, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mitchell, R. and Carson, R. (1989).Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, Washington DC.

  15. Hanemann, W. M. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation.Journal of Economic Perspectives 8, 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Donaldson, C. (1996).Willingness to Pay for Publicly-Provided Health Care. PhD Thesis, University of Aberdeen.

  17. Berwick, D. M. and Weinstein, M. C. (1985). What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultra-sound in normal pregnancy.Medical Care 23, 881–893.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Johannesson, M. (1992). Economic evaluation of lipid lowering—a feasibility test of the contingent valuation approach.Health Policy 20, 309–320.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaldor, N. (1939). Welfare propositions and interpersonal comparisons of utility.Economic Journal 49, 542–549.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hicks, J. R. (1941). The rehabilitation of consumer’s surplus.The Review of Economic Studies 8, 108–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hicks, J. R. (1943). The four consumer’s surpluses.The Review of Economic Studies 11, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Buchanan, J. M. (1990). The contractarian logic of classical liberalism. In,Liberty, Property and the Future of Constitutional Development, ed. by E. F. Paul and H. Dickman, State University of New York Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rowe, R. D., D’Arge, R. C. and Brookshire, D. S. (1980). An experiment in the economic value of visbility.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gregory, R. (1986). Interpreting measures of economic loss: evidence from contingent valuation and experimental studies.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 13, 325–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hanemann, W.M. (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much do they differ?American Economic Review 81, 635–647.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shogren, J. F., Shin, S. Y., Hayes, D. J. and Kleibenstein, J. B. (1994). Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept.American Economic Review, March, 255–270.

  27. Dubourg, W. R., Jones-Lee, M. W. and Loomes, G. (1994). Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Garbacz, C. and Thayer, M.A. (1983). An experiment in valuing senior companion program services.Journal of Human Resources 18, 147–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel of Contingent Valuation.Federal Register 58(10) 4601–1464, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gafni, A. (1990). Willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits: relevant questions in the context of public decision making about health care programs?Medical Care 29, 1246–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Neumann, P.J. and Johannesson, M. (1994) The willingness to pay for in vitro fertilization: a pilot study using contingent valuation.Medical Cart 32, 686–699.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Olsen, J.A. and Donaldson, C. (1993). Willingness to pay for public sector health care programmes in Northern Norway.HERU Discussion Paper No 05/93, Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen.

  33. Schkade, D. A. and Payne, J. W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 88–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Greene, W. H. (1991).LIMDEP Version 6.0: User’s Manual and Reference Guide, Econometric Software Incorporated, Bellport NY.

    Google Scholar 

  35. StataCorp (1995).Stata Statistical Software: Release 4.0. College Station TX, Stata Corporation.

  36. Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables,Econometrica 26, 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wetherill, G. B. (1981).Intermediate Statistical Methods, Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Chesher, A. and Irish, M. (1987). Residual analysis in the grouped data and censored normal linear model.Journal of Econometrics 34, 33–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ramsay, J. B. (1969). Tests for specification errors in classical least squares regression analysis.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B31, 350–371.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L. and Muller, K. E. (1987).Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Duxbury Press, Belmont California.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mishan, E. J. (1988).Cost-Benefit Analysis (4th edn), Unwin Hyman, London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics Research Unit, University Medical Buildings, AB25 2ZD, Foresterhill, Aberdeen

    Cam Donaldson & Shelley Farrar

  2. Department of Public Health, University Medical Buildings, AB25 2ZD, Foresterhill, Aberdeen

    Tracy Mapp

  3. Greater Glasgow Health Board, 112 Ingram Street, G1 1ET, Glasgow

    Andrew Walker

  4. Grampian Health Board, Summerfield House, 3 Eday Road, AB25 1RE, Aberdeen, UK

    Susan Macphee

Authors
  1. Cam Donaldson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shelley Farrar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tracy Mapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Susan Macphee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Donaldson, C., Farrar, S., Mapp, T. et al. Assessing community values in health care: Is the ‘Willingness to pay’ method feasible?. Health Care Anal 5, 7–29 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678452

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678452

Keywords

Search

Navigation