 Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: a response to Ryan and Santos SilvaEmily Lancsar and Elizabeth Savage () Health Economics, 2004, vol. 13, issue 9, 919-924 Abstract: In this response we start by highlighting the key area of agreement between the commentaries and our original paper: if there is uncertainty regarding which alternative will be chosen, in a DCE or in the real world, then the compensating variation as modified for discrete data by Small and Rosen is the appropriate method of deriving welfare measures from DCEs. Both commentators point out circumstances in which the method traditionally used in the health economics arena may be consistent with the compensating variation. We show that these circumstances require a number of potentially unrealistic and ad hoc assumptions, and argue that using the traditional method could produce erroneous welfare estimates if these assumptions fail to hold in practice. We show that the compensating variation method can accommodate each of the special cases raised by the commentators and therefore is the more general and appropriate approach to deriving welfare measures from DCEs. We also respond to issues raised regarding the estimation of DCEs in general and our application to asthma medication in particular. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Date: 2004 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:9:p:919-924 Access Statistics for this article Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.