Top

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

Published in:

01-10-2008 | Conference Paper

Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates

Evidence from Two Overlapping Discrete-Choice Experiments

Authors: Dr Harry Telser, Karolin Becker, Peter Zweifel

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 4/2008

Abstract

Background: Discrete-choice experiments (DCEs), while becoming increasingly popular, have rarely been tested for validity and reliability.

Objective: To address the issues of validity and reliability of willingness-to-accept (WTA) values obtained from DCEs. In particular, to examine whether differences in the attribute set describing a hypothetical product have an influence on preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) values of respondents.

Methods: Two DCEs were designed, featuring hypothetical insurance contracts for Swiss healthcare. The contract attributes were pre-selzected in expert sessions with representatives of the Swiss healthcare system, and their relevance was checked in a pre-test. Experiment A contained rather radical health system reform options, while experiment B concentrated on more familiar elements such as copayment and the benefit catalogue. Three attributes were present in both experiments: delayed access to innovation (‘innovation’), restricted drug benefit (‘generics’), and the change in the monthly premium (‘premium’). The issue to be addressed was whether WTA values for the overlapping attributes were similar, even though they were embedded in widely differing choice sets.

Two representative telephone surveys with 1000 people aged >25 years were conducted independently in the German and French parts of Switzerland during September 2003. Socioeconomic variables collected included age, sex, education, total household income, place of residence, occupation, and household size. Three models were estimated (a simple linear model, a model allowing interaction of the price attribute with socioeconomic characteristics, and a model with a full set of interaction terms).

Results: The socioeconomic characteristics of the two samples were very similar. Theoretical validity tends to receive empirical support in both experiments in all cases where economic theory makes predictions concerning differences between socioeconomic groups. However, a systematic inappropriate influence on measured WTA seems to be present in at least one experiment. This is likely to be experiment A, in which respondents were far less familiar with proposed alternatives than in experiment B.

Conclusions: Measuring preferences for major, little-known innovations in a reliable way seems to present particular challenges for experimental research.

Available only for authorised users

Hanley et al.[2] give a literature overview for convergent validity in the environmental context.

Reduced premiums apply for young adults (aged <26 years) and children.

See also San Miguel et al.[31] on the importance of a priori information for consistency of choices in DCE. The authors propose a summary sheet describing attributes and their levels. Such a sheet was provided in both experiments A and B.

Because of imprecise and partially missing income data of the respondents it was not possible to adequately derive WTA with respect to income.

Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2(1): 55–64PubMed

Hanley N, Ryan M, Wright R. Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics. Health Econ 2003; 12: 3–16PubMedCrossRef

Scanlon DP, Chernew ME, Lave JR. Consumer health plan choice. Annu Rev Public Health 1997; 18: 507–28PubMedCrossRef

Ryan M. A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Econ 2004; 13: 291–6PubMedCrossRef

Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J. Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ 2001; 10: 617–34PubMedCrossRef

Merino-Castellò A. Demand for pharmaceutical drugs: a choice modelling experiment [working paper]. Barcelona: University of Barcelona, 2003

Ryan M, Wordsworth S. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to the level of attributes in discrete choice experiments. Scott J Polit Econ 2000; 47: 504–24CrossRef

San Miguel F, Ryan M, Mclntosh E. Applying conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia. Appl Econ 2000; 32: 823–33CrossRef

Ryan M, Mclntosh E, Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ 1998; 7: 373–8PubMedCrossRef

10.

Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to assess women’s preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997; 6: 261–73PubMedCrossRef

11.

Scott A, Vick S. Patients, doctors and contracts: an application of principal-agent theory to the doctor-patient relationship. Scott J Polit Econ 1999; 46: 111–34CrossRef

12.

Slothuus-Skoldborg U, Gyrd-Hansen D. Conjoint analysis: the cost variable. An Achilles’ heel? Health Econ 2003; 12(6): 479–97CrossRef

13.

Louviere JL, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRef

14.

DeShazo JR, Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. J Environ Econ Manage 2002; 44: 123–43CrossRef

15.

Luce DR. Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1959

16.

Manski C, Lerman SR. The estimation of choice probabilities from choice based samples. Econometrica 1977; 45(8): 1977–88CrossRef

17.

McFadden D. Economic choices. Am Econ Rev 2001; 91(3): 351–78CrossRef

18.

Lancaster K. Consumer demand: a new approach. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971

19.

Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR. Discrete choice analysis. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press, 1985

20.

Jöreskog K, Goldberger AS. Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. J Am Stat Assoc 1975; 70: 631–9

21.

Schoenberg R, Arminger G. Linear covariance structures version 2.0, user guide. Kensington (MD): RJS Software, 1989

22.

Litwin MS. How to measure survey reliability and validity. London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 1995

23.

Bryan S, Gold L, Sheldon R, et al. Preference measurement using conjoint methods: an empirical investigation of reliability, Health Econ 2000; 9: 385–95PubMedCrossRef

24.

Cairns J, van der Pol M. Repeated follow-up as a method for reducing non-trading behaviour in discrete choice experiments. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58: 2211–8PubMedCrossRef

25.

Farrar S, Ryan M. Response-ordering effects: a methodological issue in conjoint analysis. Health Econ 1999; 8: 75–9PubMedCrossRef

26.

Verlegh PWJ, Schifferstein HNJ, Wittink DR. Range and number-of-levels effects in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Marketing Letters 2002; 13(1): 41–52CrossRef

27.

Ryan M, Bate A. Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care. Appl Econ Letters 2001; 8: 59–63CrossRef

28.

Scott A. Eliciting GP’s preferences for pecuniary and nonpecuniary job characteristics. J Health Econ 2001; 20: 329–47PubMedCrossRef

29.

Scott A. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. J Econ Psychol 2002; 23: 383–98CrossRef

30.

Lloyd A. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Econ 2003; 12: 393–402PubMedCrossRef

31.

San Miguel F, Ryan M, Amaya-Amaya M. ‘Irrational’ stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation. Health Econ 2005; 14(3): 307–22CrossRef

32.

Telser H, Zweifel P. Measuring willingness-to-pay for risk reduction: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Econ 2002; 11(3): 129–39PubMedCrossRef

33.

Hausman JA, editor. Contingent valuation: a critical assessment. Amsterdam, London, New York, Tokyo: North-Holland, 1993

34.

Nocera S, Bonato D, Telser H. The contingency of contingent valuation: what are people willing to pay against Alzheimer’s Disease? Int J Health Care Finance Econ 2002; 2: 219–40PubMedCrossRef

35.

Telser H, Zweifel P. Validity of discrete-choice experiments: evidence for health risk reduction. Appl Econ 2007; 39(1): 69–78CrossRef

36.

Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Mark Res 1994; 31: 545–57CrossRef

37.

Hardin RH, Sloane NJA. A new approach to the construction of optimal designs. J Stat Plan Inference 1993; 37: 229–369CrossRef

38.

Hardin RH, Sloane NJA. Operating manual for Gosset: a general purpose program for constructing experimental designs. 2nd ed. Murray Hill (NJ): AT&T Bell Laboratories, 1994

39.

Hedayat AS, Sloane NJA, Stufken J. Orthogonal arrays: theory and applications. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1999CrossRef

40.

Ryan M. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ 1998; 7: 373–8PubMedCrossRef

41.

Ryan M, San Miguel F. Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. Health Econ 2003; 12: 295–307PubMedCrossRef

42.

Maddala T, Phillips KA, Johnson RF. An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Econ 2003; 12: 1035–47PubMedCrossRef

43.

Johnson RF, Ozdemir S, Hauber AB. Motivating out-of-pocket treatment costs with cheap talk [working paper]. Research Triangle Park (NC): Research Triangle Institute, 2007

44.

Cook J, Whittington D, Canh DG, et al. Reliability of stated preferences for cholera and typhoid vaccines with time to think in Hue, Vietnam. Econ Inq 2007; 45(1): 100–14CrossRef

45.

Johnson RF, Desvouges WH. Estimating stated preferences with rated pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. J Environ Econ Manage 1997; 34: 79–99CrossRef

46.

Samuelson W, Zeckhauser RJ. Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain 1988; 1: 7–59CrossRef

47.

Horowitz JK, McConnell KE. A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manage 2002; 44: 426–47CrossRef

48.

Zweifel P, Telser H, Vaterlaus S. Consumer resistance against regulation; the case of health care. J Regulatory Econ 2006; 29(3): 319–32CrossRef

49.

Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung. Bern: Prämien, 2003

50.

Andreoni J. Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and ricardian equivalence. J Polit Econ 1989; 97(6): 1447–58CrossRef

51.

Andreoni J. Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: the effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Q J Econ 1995; 110(1): 1–21CrossRef

52.

Shepard DS, Zeckhauser RJ. Survival and consumption. Manage Sci 1994; 30(4): 423–39CrossRef

53.

Becker K, Zweifel P. Age and choice in health insurance: evidence from Switzerland. Patient 2008; 1(1): 27–40PubMedCrossRef

54.

Dellaert BGC, Brazell JD, Louviere JL. The effect of attribute variation on consumer choice. Marketing Letters 1999; 10(2): 139–47CrossRef

Title: Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates
Evidence from Two Overlapping Discrete-Choice Experiments
Authors: Dr Harry Telser
Karolin Becker
Peter Zweifel
Publication date: 01-10-2008
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 4/2008
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/1312067-200801040-00010

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2008

Comparison of Two Multi-Criteria Decision Techniques for Eliciting Treatment Preferences in People with Neurological Disorders

Acknowledgment

Andrew Lloyd

How Does Patients’ Quality of Life Guide Their Preferences Regarding Aspects of Asthma Therapy?

Why Not Ask?

Issues that May Affect the Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates in Stated-Studies

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials