Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory

被引:109
作者
Lancsar, E
Savage, E
机构
[1] Univ Newcastle Upon Tyne, Business Sch Econ, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, Tyne & Wear, England
[2] Univ Newcastle Upon Tyne, Ctr Hlth Serv Res, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, Tyne & Wear, England
[3] Univ Technol Sydney, CHERE, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
关键词
welfare measurement; willingness to pay; compensating variation; discrete choice experiments; cost-benefit analysis;
D O I
10.1002/hec.870
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are being used increasingly in health economics to elicit preferences for products and programs. The results of such experiments have been used to calculate measures of welfare or more specifically, respondents' 'willingness to pay' (WTP) for products and programs and their 'marginal willingness to pay' (MWTP) for the attributes that make up such products and programs. In this note we show that the methods currently used to derive measures of welfare from DCEs in the health economics literature are not consistent with random utility theory (RUT), or with microeconomic welfare theory more generally. The inconsistency with welfare theory is an important limitation on the use of such WTP estimates in cost-benefit analyses. We describe an alternative method of deriving measures of welfare (compensating variation) from DCEs that is consistent with RUT and is derived using welfare theory. We demonstrate its use in an empirical application to derive the WTP for asthma medication and compare it to the results elicited from the method currently used in the health economics literature. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:901 / 907
页数:7
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]   COMBINING REVEALED AND STATED PREFERENCE METHODS FOR VALUING ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITIES [J].
ADAMOWICZ, W ;
LOUVIERE, J ;
WILLIAMS, M .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 1994, 26 (03) :271-292
[2]   Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation [J].
Adamowicz, W ;
Swait, J ;
Boxall, P ;
Louviere, J ;
Williams, M .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 1997, 32 (01) :65-84
[3]  
Adamowicz W. L., 1999, VALUING ENV PREFEREN, P460
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2000, HDB HLTH EC
[5]  
Ben-Akiva M., 1985, Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand
[6]  
BOCKSTAEL NE, 1991, MEASURING DEMAND ENV, P227
[7]   Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes [J].
Gyrd-Hansen, D ;
Sogaard, J .
HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2001, 10 (07) :617-634
[8]   THE FOUNDATIONS OF WELFARE ECONOMICS [J].
Hicks, J. R. .
ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 1939, 49 (196) :696-712
[9]   Eliciting stated health preferences: An application to willingness to pay for longevity [J].
Johnson, FR ;
Desvousges, WH ;
Ruby, MC ;
Stieb, D ;
De Civita, P .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1998, 18 (02) :S57-S67
[10]  
Johnson FR, 2000, HEALTH ECON, V9, P295, DOI 10.1002/1099-1050(200006)9:4<295::AID-HEC520>3.0.CO