Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Willingness-to-Pay and Demand Curves: A Comparison of Results Obtained Using Different Elicitation Formats

  • Published:
International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Health economists use “willingness-to-pay” to assess the prospective value of novel interventions. The technique remains controversial, not least with respect to the formats under which values are elicited. The paper analyses the results of a series of studies of the same intervention valued by the same population, in which different elicitation formats were employed. The findings support the hypothesis that data collected using different formats give rise to different demand curves, from which different inferences about demand elasticity, profitability and consumer surplus will be derived. Judgements as to the relative merits of rival interventions depend crucially upon whichever format has been used to evaluate each intervention.

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

  • Altman, D. G. and J. M. Bland. (2003). “Interaction Revisited: The Difference Between Two Estimates.” British Medical Journal 326, 219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. and R. Tranter. (1998). “The Dilemma Concerning Choice of Contingent Valuation Willingness-To-Pay Elicitation Format.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41, 253–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, S. and C. Donaldson. (2003). “Valuing the Benefits and Costs of Health Care Programmes: Where's the “Extra” in Extra-Welfarism?” Social Science and Medicine 56, 1121–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, S., W. Sohn, A. I. Ismail, J. M. Lepkowski, and R. F. Belli. (2004). “Willingness to Pay for Dentin Regeneration in a Sample of Dentate Adults.” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 32, 210–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenschein, K. and M. Johannesson. (1999). “Use of Contingent Valuation to Place a Monetary Value on Pharmacy Services: An Overview and Review of The Literature.” Clinical Therapeutics 21, 1402–1417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenschein, K., M. Johannesson, K. K. Yokoyama, and P. R. Freeman. (2001). “Hypothetical Versus Real Willingness to Pay in the Health Care Sector: Results of a Field Experiment.” Journal of Health Economics 20, 441–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. C., P. A. Champ, R. C. Bishop, and D. W. McCollum. (1996). “Which Response Format Reveals the Truth About Donations to a Public Good?” Land Economics 72, 156–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, S., T. Falba, N. Duchovny, M. Jofre-Bonet, S. O'Malley, and J. Sindelar. (2004). “Value to Smokers Improved Cessation Products: Evidence from a Willingness to Pay Survey.” Nicotine and Tobacco Research 6, 631–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, and N. F. Meade. (2001). “Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence.” Environmental and Resource Economics 19, 173–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cookson, R. (2003). “Willingness to Pay Methods in Health Care: A Sceptical View.” Health Economics 12, 891–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, A., B. O'Brien, and A. Gafni. (1998). “Health Care Contingent Valuation Studies: A Review and Classification of the Literature”. Health Economics 7, 313–326.

  • Donaldson, C. (1999). “Valuing the Benefits of Publicly-Provided Health Care: Does ‘Ability to Pay' Preclude the Use of ‘Willingness to Pay'?” Social Science and Medicine 49, 551–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, C., S. Birch and A. Gafni. (2002). “The Distribution Problem in Economic Evaluation: Income and the Valuation of Costs and Consequences of Health Care Programmes.” Health Economics 11, 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, H., B. Kouyate, J. Cairns, F. Mugisha and R. Sauerborn. (2003a). “Willingness-To-Pay for Community-Based Insurance in Burkina Faso.” Health Economics 12, 849–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, H., B. Kouyate, J. Cairns and R. Sauerborn. (2003b). “A Comparison of the Reliability of the Take-It-Or-Leave-It And the Bidding Game Approaches to Estimating Willingness-To-Pay in a Rural Population in West Africa.” Social Science and Medicine 56, 2181–2189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foreit, J. R. and K. G. F. Foreit. (2003). “The Reliability and Validity of Willingness to Pay Surveys for Reproductive Health Pricing Decisions in Developing Countries.” Health Policy 63, 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frew, E., J. L. Wolstenholme and D. K. Whynes. (2001). “Willingness-To-Pay for Colorectal Cancer Screening.” European Journal of Cancer 37, 1746–1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frew, E. J., V. Hammersley, J. Wolstenholme and D. K. Whynes. (2001). “Collaborating with a Primary Care-Based Research Network.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 7, 339–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frew, E. J., D. K. Whynes and J. L. Wolstenholme. (2003). “Eliciting Willingness-To-Pay: Comparing Closed-Ended with Open-Ended and Payment Scale Formats.” Medical Decision Making 23, 150–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frew, E. J., J. L. Wolstenholme and D. K. Whynes. (2004). “Comparing Willingness To Pay: Bidding Game Format vs. Open-Ended and Payment Scale Formats.” Health Policy 68, 289–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frykblom, P. (1997). “Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34, 275–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammar, H. and O. Johansson-Stenman. (2004). “The Value of Risk-Free Cigarettes—Do Smokers Underestimate the Risk?” Health Economics 13, 59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N., M. Ryan and R. Wright. (2003). “Estimating the Monetary Value of Health Care: Lessons From Environmental Economics.” Health Economics 12, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2002). “Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence in the European Union,” EUCAN 1997 estimates, http://www-dep.iarc.fr/eucan/eucan.htm.

  • Johannesson, M., B. Jonsson and G. Karlsson. (1996). “Outcome measurement in economic evaluation.” Health Economics 5, 279–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, P.-O. (1995). Evaluating Health Risks: An Economic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klose, T. (1999). “The Contingent Valuation Method in Health Care.” Health Policy 47, 97–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristrom, B. (1990). “A Non-Parametric Approach to the Estimation of Welfare Measures in Discrete Response Valuation Studies.” Land Economics 66, 135–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, D. (1998). “How to Screen for Colon Cancer.” Annual Reviews of Medicine 49, 163–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liljas, B. and K. Blumenschein. (2000). “On Hypothetical Bias and Calibration in Cost-Benefit Studies.” Health Policy 52, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, A. J. (2003). “Threats to the Estimation of Benefit: Are Preference Elicitation Methods Accurate?” Health Economics 12, 393–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J., T. Brown, B. Lucero and G. Peterson. (1997). “Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 10, 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mataria, A., C. Donaldson, S. Luchini and J.-P. Moatti. (2004). “A Stated Preference Approach to Assessing Health Care Quality Improvements in Palestine: From Theoretical Validity to Policy Implications.” Journal of Health Economics 23, 1285–1311.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Mulcahy, H. E., M. J. G. Farthing and D. P. O'Donoghue. (1997). “Fortnightly Review: Screening for Asymptomatic Cancer.” British Medical Journal 314, 285–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. A. and R. D. Smith. (2001). “Theory Versus Practice: A Review of Willingness to Pay in Health and Health Care.” Health Economics 10, 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwujekwe, O., R. Chima, E. Shu, D. Nwagbo and P. Okonkwo. (2001). “Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay for Insecticide-Treated Nets in Five Nigerian Communities.” Tropical Medicine and International Health 6, 545–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwujekwe, O., J. Fox-Rushby and K. Hanson. (2004). “Valuing the Benefits of a Health Intervention Using Three Different Approaches to Contingent Valuation: Re-treatment of Mosquito Nets in Nigeria.” Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 9, 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwujekwe, O., K. Hanson and J. Fox-Rushby. (2005). “Do Divergences Between Stated and Actual Willingness to Pay Signify the Existence of Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys?” Social Science and Medicine 60, 525–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwujekwe, O., K. Hanson and J. A. Fox-Rushby. (2003). “Who Buys Insecticide-Treated Nets? Implications for Increasing Coverage in Nigeria.” Health Policy and Planning 18, 279–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ready, R. C., J. C. Buzby and D. Hu. (1996). “Differences Between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Valuation Estimates.” Land Economics 72, 397–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M. (2004). “A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for Estimating Monetary Values.” Health Economics 13, 291–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., D. A. Scott and C. Donaldson. (2004). “Valuing Health Care Using Willingness to Pay: A Comparison of the Payment Card and Dichotomous Choice Methods.” Journal of Health Economics 23, 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholefield, J. H., S. Moss, F. Sufi, C. M. Mangham and J. D. Hardcastle. (2002). “Effect of Faecal Occult Blood Screening on Mortality from Colorectal Cancer: Results From a Randomised Controlled Trial.” Gut 50, 840–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. D. (2000). “The Discrete-Choice Willingness to Pay Question Format in Health Economics: Should We Adopt Environmental Guidelines?” Medical Decision Making 20, 194–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. D. (2003). “Construction of the Contingent Valuation Market in Health Care: A Critical Assessment.” Health Economics 12, 609–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towler, B., L. Irwig, P. Glasziou, J. Kewenter, D. Weller and C. Silagy. (1998). “A Systematic Review of the Effects of Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using the Faecal Occult Blood Test, Hemoccult.” British Medical Journal 317, 559–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial Investigators. (2002). “Single Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening to Prevent Colorectal Cancer: Baseline Findings of a UK Multicentre Randomised Trial.” Lancet 359, 1291–1300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whynes, D. K., E. Frew and J. L. Wolstenholme. (2003). “A Comparison of Two Methods for Eliciting Contingent Valuations of Colorectal Cancer Screening.” Journal of Health Economics 22, 555–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whynes, D. K., E. J. Frew, R. Edwards and W. S. Atkin. (2003). “The Costs of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the United Kingdom.” International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 19, 384–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whynes, D. K., J. L. Wolstenholme and E. Frew. (2004). “Evidence of Range Bias in Contingent Valuation Payment Scales.” Health Economics 13, 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. P., F. A. Macrae and D. J. B. St John (1996). “Clinical Methods for Early Detection: Basis, use and Evaluation.” In G. P. Young, P. Rozen and B. Levin (eds.) Prevention and Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer. London: WB Saunders Company Ltd.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham, UK

    David K. Whynes

  2. Health Economics Facility, University of Birmingham, UK

    Emma J. Frew

  3. Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, UK

    Jane L. Wolstenholme

  4. School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom

    David K. Whynes

Authors
  1. David K. Whynes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emma J. Frew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane L. Wolstenholme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David K. Whynes.

Additional information

JEL classification: D12, I10

This research was undertaken as a part of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial, funded by Cancer Research UK, the UK Medical Research Council, NHS R&D and Keymed Ltd. None of the funding bodies had any involvement in the writing of this paper or in the decision to submit it for publication.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Whynes, D.K., Frew, E.J. & Wolstenholme, J.L. Willingness-to-Pay and Demand Curves: A Comparison of Results Obtained Using Different Elicitation Formats. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 5, 369–386 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-005-4014-2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-005-4014-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation