Top

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Published in:

01-03-2010 | Practical Application

Health system choice

A pilot discrete-choice experiment eliciting the preferences of British and Australian citizens

Authors: Paul A. Scuffham, Dr Jennifer A. Whitty, Matthew Taylor, Ruth C. Saxby

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 2/2010

Abstract

Citizen preferences surrounding desirable health system characteristics should be considered when undertaking health system reform. The objective of this study was to pilot test a discrete-choice instrument designed to elicit preference weights surrounding health system attributes.

A discrete-choice experiment was designed and administered to two convenience samples (n=50 each) recruited from the UK and Australia. The impact of eight health system attributes representing level of health, equity, responsiveness and healthcare financing on the choice between hypothetical health systems was analysed utilizing mixed logit analysis.

All characteristics affected the likelihood a health system would be preferred, with the exception of the additional tax contribution levels required to finance the system. There were very few missing or inconsistent responses. The direction of preferences was consistent with expectations for both samples; that is, an improvement in attributes describing level of health, equity or responsiveness increased the likelihood that a health system would be preferred.

A number of potential improvements to the preference instrument are suggested. The discrete-choice technique used in this study offers a feasible method for eliciting health system preferences, and its use in a larger-scale study to elicit and compare the preferences of representative population samples is supported.

Available only for authorised users

WHO. The World Health Report 2000. Health systems: improving performance. Geneva: WHO, 2000

Palmer GR. Evidence-based health policy-making, hospital funding and health insurance. Med J Aust 2000 Feb 7; 172(3): 130–3PubMed

Docteur E, Oxley H. Health-care systems: lessons from the reform experience [OECD health working papers]. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2003

Ham C. Priority setting in health care: learning from international experience. Health Policy 1997 Oct; 42(1): 49–66PubMedCrossRef

National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. A healthier future for all Australians: final report. Canberra (ACT): Australian Government, 2009 Jun

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Patient and public involvement policy, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/getinvolved/patientandpublicinvolvement/patientandpublicinvolvementpolicy/patient_and_public_involvement_policy.jsp [Accessed 2007 Dec 12]

Health Canada. Health Canada policy toolkit for public involvement in decision making. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada, 2000

Akkazieva B, Gulacsi L, Brandtmuller A, et al. Patients’ preferences for healthcare system reforms in Hungary: a conjoint analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2006; 5(3): 189–98PubMedCrossRef

Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2002; 2(4): 319–26PubMedCrossRef

10.

Lancaster K. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 1966; 74(2): 132–57CrossRef

11.

Bryan S, Dolan P. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: for better or for worse? Eur J Health Econ 2004 Oct; 5(3): 199–202PubMedCrossRef

12.

Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(8): 661–77PubMedCrossRef

13.

Fiebig D, Louviere J, Walsman D. Contemporary issues in modelling discrete choice experimental data in health economics [working paper]. Sydney (NSW): University of New South Wales, 2005

14.

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

15.

Whitty JA, Rundle-Thiele SR, Scuffham PA. Insights into public preferences for pharmaceutical funding. Int J Pharma Health Care Mark 2008; 2(3): 216–34CrossRef

16.

Green C, Gerard K. Exploring the social value of health-care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2009; 18(8): 951–76PubMedCrossRef

17.

Gyrd-Hansen D, Slothuus U. The citizen’s preferences for financing public health care: a Danish survey. Int J Health Care Finance Econ 2002 Mar; 2(1): 25–36PubMedCrossRef

18.

Hjelmgren J, Anell A. Population preferences and choice of primary care models: a discrete choice experiment in Sweden. Health Policy 2007 Oct; 83(2–3): 314–22PubMedCrossRef

19.

Lancsar E, Louviere J. Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econ 2006 Aug; 15(8): 797–811PubMedCrossRef

20.

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

21.

Howard K, Salkeld G. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer. Value Health 2009; 12(2): 354–63PubMedCrossRef

22.

Hall J, Fiebig DG, King MT, et al. What influences participation in genetic carrier testing? Results from a discrete choice experiment. J Health Econ 2006 May; 25(3): 520–37PubMedCrossRef

23.

Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005CrossRef

24.

Greene WH. NLOGIT version 4.0: reference guide. Plainview (NY): Econometric Software, Inc., 2007

25.

King MT, Hall J, Lancsar E, et al. Patient preferences for managing asthma: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2007 Jul; 16(7): 703–17PubMedCrossRef

26.

Lancsar EJ, Hall JP, King M, et al. Using discrete choice experiments to investigate subject preferences for preventive asthma medication. Respirology 2007 Jan; 12(1): 127–36PubMedCrossRef

27.

Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple-format, stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000 Jun; 9(4): 295–317PubMedCrossRef

28.

Kjaer T, Gyrd-Hansen D. Preference heterogeneity and choice of cardiac rehabilitation program: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Policy 2008 Jan; 85(1): 124–32PubMedCrossRef

29.

Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ 2005 Oct; 14(10): 1079–83PubMedCrossRef

30.

Greene W. NLOGIT [computer program]. Version 4.0.1. Plainview (NY): Econometric Software, Inc., 2007

31.

Train K. Halton sequences for mixed logit [report no. E00278]. Berkley (CA): University of California, 2000

32.

Bryan S, Roberts T, Heginbotham C, et al. QALY-maximisation and public preferences: results from a general population survey. Health Econ 2002 Dec; 11(8): 679–93PubMedCrossRef

33.

Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001 Mar; 5(5): 1–186PubMed

34.

Ryan M, Gerard K, Currie G. Using discrete choice experiments in health economics. In: Jones AM, editor. The Elgar companion to health economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2006: 405–14

35.

Kontoleon A, Yabe M. Assessing the impacts of alternative ‘opt-out’ formats in choice experiment studies: consumer preferences for genetically modified content and production information in food. J Agric Policy Res 2003; 5: 1–43

36.

Ryan M, Skatun D. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ 2004 Apr; 13(4): 397–402PubMedCrossRef

Title: Health system choice
A pilot discrete-choice experiment eliciting the preferences of British and Australian citizens
Authors: Paul A. Scuffham
Dr Jennifer A. Whitty
Matthew Taylor
Ruth C. Saxby
Publication date: 01-03-2010
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11531170-000000000-00000

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Health system choice

A pilot discrete-choice experiment eliciting the preferences of British and Australian citizens

Abstract

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

Outpatient medication costs of patients with cystic fibrosis in Germany

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for premenstrual dysphoric disorder

Willingness to pay for maternal health outcomes

Do reduced inpatient costs associated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) balance the overall cost for HIV treatment?

Organization and estimated patient-borne costs of oral anticoagulation therapy in Italy