Consistency Within and Between Methods of Health Status Valuation: A Within Subjecy Examination of the Willingness to Pay and Standard Gamble Methods

Gwendolyn C Morrison

CRIEFF Discussion Papers from Centre for Research into Industry, Enterprise, Finance and the Firm

Abstract: In a priority setting context, the attainment of a desirable allocation of health care resources is dependent upon the accurate estimation of health gains produced by different treatments and services. Therefore, the detection of disparities between methods of obtaining these estimates has serious implications for the allocative process. Using data from a Department of Transport study into the value of preventing non-fatal road injuries, health status values for a set of injuries obtained using the standard gamble (SG) and willingness to pay (WTP) methods are examined. The results show that significant differences arise even when responses from both methods are obtained from the same individuals. Moreover, internal consistency checks built into the SG and WTP sections of the questionnaires reveal inconsistencies within these methods. Systematic inconsistencies, both within and between methods, are identified at the individual and aggregate level, and a model predicting these results is presented. SG and WTP responses are then adjusted - isolating the different components of the model - and the relative injury severities are recalculated accordingly. The recalculated SG and WTP results are then compared to determine whether the disparities within and between methods have been reduced or removed. Finally, suggestions regarding the application of these methods to various ends is discussed in the light of the results.

Keywords: Willingness to pay; Standard Gamble; Health State Valuation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: B4 D61 D8 I1 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1994-10
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

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:san:crieff:9407

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in CRIEFF Discussion Papers from Centre for Research into Industry, Enterprise, Finance and the Firm Department of Economics, Castlecliffe, The Scores, St Andrews, KY16 9AZ. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Department of Economics, The University of St Andrews Business School ().