Aiding priority setting in health care: is there a role for the contingent valuation method?

Jan Abel Olsen

Health Economics, 1997, vol. 6, issue 6, 603-612

Abstract: The paper discusses some methodological and measurement aspects with the contingent valuation (CV) method which appear to create problems when eliciting preferences for the relative social valuation of alternative health care programmes. After pointing to biases which tend to exaggerate the true valuations, emphasis is placed on framing issues when applied to health care. Thereafter the paper discusses the extent to which preferences elicited through one's willingness to pay can be used to infer how the respondent would prioritise between the health care programmes in question. New empirical evidence is presented which suggest discrepancies between a CV ranking and the ranking expressed when making a direct ordinal comparison. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 1997
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (18)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199711)6:63.0.CO;2-2

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:6:y:1997:i:6:p:603-612

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.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().