Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 3, 2003 - Issue 6
Submit an article Journal homepage
72
Views
22
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Methodological issues in the monetary valuation of benefits in healthcare

Mandy Ryan Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University Medical School, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. [email protected]
,
Verity Watson Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University Medical School, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. [email protected]
&
Mabelle Amaya-Amaya Health Economics Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University Medical School, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. [email protected]
Pages 717-727 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • Schelling TC. The life you save may be your own. In: Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis. Chase SB Jr (Ed.). The Brookings Institution, DC, USA (1968).
  • Drummond MF, O'Brien B. Stoddart G et al Cost effectiveness analysis. In: Methods For The Economic Evaluation Of Healthcare Programmes. Oxford Medical Press, Oxford, UK, 96–138 (1997).
  • Williams A. The value of QALYs. Health Social Serv. 95(4957), S5—S6 (1985).
  • Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality adjusted life years, utility theory and healthy years equivalent. Merl Decis. Making-9,142–149 (1989).
  • Mehrez A, Gafni A. Healthy years equivalent: how to measure them using the standard gamble approach. Med. Decis. Making-11, 140–146 (1991).
  • Buckingham K. A note on HYE (Healthy Years Equivalent). J. Health Econ.11, 301–309 (1993).
  • Ryan M. Using conjoint analysis to go beyond health outcomes and take account of patients preferences: an application to in vitro fertilisation. Soc. Li. Merl 48, 535–546 (1999).
  • Diener A. O'Brien B. Gafni A. Healthcare contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 7, 313–26 (1998).
  • Netten A, Ryan M, Smith P et al The development of a measure of social care outcome for older people. PSSRU Discussion Paper 1690/02 (2002).
  • Viney R. Lancsar E and Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev. Phannacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2,319–326 (2002).
  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD. Stated Choke Methods. Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2000).
  • ••Provides an excellent overview of the issues raised in the design and analysis of discrete choice experiments (DCEs).
  • Culyer A. Evans R. Normative rabbits from positive hats: mark pauly on welfare economics. Health Econ.15, 243–251 (1996)
  • Birch S. Donaldson C. Valuing the benefits and costs of healthcare programmes: where's the 'extra' in extra-welfarism? Soc. Li. Merl (2003) (In Press).
  • Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B eta]. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual Edward Elgar, Cheltelham, UK (2002).
  • ••Provides an excellent overview of the concepts, techniques and issues involved in both contingent valuation (CV) and DCEs.
  • Bishop R, Heberlein T Measuring the value of extra-market goods; are indirect measure biased?' Agri. Econ. 61(5), 926–930 (1979).
  • Klose T The contingent valuation method in healthcare. Health Poll. 47,97–123 (1999).
  • Olsen JA, Smith R. Who have been asked to value what? A review of 54 WTP studies on health and healthcare. Paper presented to the UK Health Economists' Study Group. Galway, Ireland. July (1998).
  • Ryan M, Ratcliffe J, Tucker J. Using WTP to value alternative methods of antenatal care. Soc. Sci. Med. 46,1–12 (1998).
  • Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Borgquist L. Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy: results of a Swedish pilot study, Health. Econ. 10,461–474 (1991).
  • Olsen JA, Donaldson C. Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public healthcare programmes. Soc. Sci. Med. 46,1–12 (1998)
  • Propper C. Contingent Valuation of time spent on NHS waiting lists. Econ. 1. 100, 193–199 (1991).
  • Propper C. The disutility of time spent on the United Kingdomis National Health Service waiting lists. j Hum. Res. 30, 667–700 (1995).
  • Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond C, Ludbrook A. Using discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Healthcare 10, 155–160 (2001).
  • Farrar S, Ryan M, Ross D eta]. Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Soc. Sci. Med. 50(1), 63–75 (2000).
  • Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value healthcare: current practice and future prospects. Applied Health Econ. Polig Anal (2003) (In Press).
  • Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: a Practical Guide To Their Development and Use. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1989).
  • Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technology Assess. 3(9), (1999).
  • Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C etal, Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technology Assess. 5(5), (2001) .
  • •Useful review of application of CV and DCEs in healthcare.
  • Donaldson C, Farrar S. Mapp TJ etal Assessing community values in healthcare: is the willingness to pay method feasible? Heal. Cate Aging5, 7–29 (1997)
  • Thompson MS, Read JI, Liang M. Feasibility of willingness to pay measurement in chronic arthritis. Med. Decis. M 4,195–215 (1988).
  • Kartman B, Stalhammar NO, Johannesson M. Contingent Valuation with an open-ended follow-up question: a test of scope effects. Health Econ. 6,637–639 (1997).
  • ThOlupsOn MS, Read JI, Liang M. Willingness to pay concepts for social decisions in health. In: Values ancl Long-Teym Cate. Kane RL, Kane RA (Eds). Lexington Books, MA, USA,103–126 (1982).
  • Donaldson C, Hundley V, Mapp TJ. Willingness to pay: a method for measuring preferences for maternity care? Birth 25, 32–39 (1998).
  • Frew E, Wolstenholme J, Whynes D. Willingness to pay for colorectal cancer screening. Eur.j Cancer 37,1746–1751 (2001).
  • Pauly MV. Valuing healthcare benefits in monetary terms. In: Valuing- Healthcare: Costs, Benefits, and Effectiveness of Pharmaceutical and Other Medical Technologies. Sloan FA (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 99–124 (1995).
  • Donaldson C, Thomas R, Torgerson DJ. Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay. Appl. Econ. 29,79–84 (1997).
  • Johannesson M, Johansson P-0, Kristrom B etal Willingness to pay for lipid lowering: a health production function approach. Appl. Econ. 25,1023-1031 (1993).
  • Eckerlund I, Johannesson M, Johansson P-O etal Value for money? A contingent valuation study of the optimal size of the Swedish healthcare budget. Health Poll. 34, 135–143 (1999).
  • Johannesson M, O'Conor RM, Kobelt- Nguyen NG etal Willingness to pay for reduced incontinence symptoms. BE j Ural. 80,557–562 (1997).
  • Ryan M. Using willingness to pay to assess the benefits of assisted reproductive techniques, Health Econ. 5,543–558 (1996).
  • Phillips IKA, Homan RIK, Luft HS etal Willingness to pay for poison control centres. Health Econ. 16,343–357 (1997).
  • Lindholm L, Rosen ME, Stenbeck ME. Determinants of Willingness to pay taxes for a community based prevention programme. Land. j Soc. Med. 25, 126–135 (1997).
  • Flowers CR, Garber AM, Bergen MR etal Willingness to pay utility assessment: feasibility of use in normative patient decision support systems. j Am. Med. Informatic. Assoc. Proc. 5223—S227 (1997).
  • Bala MV, Wood LL, Zarkin GA et al Valuing outcomes in healthcare: a comparison of willingness to pay and quality adjusted life years. j Clin. Epic/. 51, 667–676 (1998).
  • Gafni A. Willingness to pay in the context of an economic evaluation of healthcare programmes: theory and practice. Am M Care. 3(Suppl.), S21—S32 (1997).
  • Coley CM, Li Y-H, Medsger AR etal Preferences for home versus hospital care among low risk patients with community acquired pneumonia. Arch. Intern. Med. 156,1565–1571 (1996).
  • Dranitsaris G. A pilot study to investigate the feasibility of using willingness to pay as a measure of value in cancer supportive care: an assessment of amistofine cytoprotection, Support Care Cancer 5, 489–499 (1997).
  • Lee SJ, Neumann PJ, Churchill WH et al Patients willingness to pay for autologous blood donation. Health Policy 40, 1–12 (1997).
  • Johannesson M, Aberg H, Agréus L etal Cost—benefit analysis of non- pharmacological treatment of hypertension. .1. Intern. Med. 230,307-312 (1991).
  • Donaldson C, ShacIdey P, Abdalla M. Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisted. Health Econ. 6,145–159 (1997).
  • O'Leary JF, Fairclough DL, Jankowski MK et al Comparison of time trade of utilities and rating scale values for cancer patients and their relatives: evidence for a possible plateau relationship. Med. Decis. Making 15,132–137 (1995).
  • Donaldson C. Developing the method of willingness to pay for community preferences for healthcare. Final report to Biomed 2 Programme (PL950832) of the European Commission, Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK and the Departments of Economics and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Canada (1999).
  • Ryan M. Should government fund assisted reproductive techniques? A study using willingness to pay. Appl. Econ. 29,841–849 (1997).
  • Chakraborty G, Ettenson R. Gaeth G. How consumers chose health insurance. J. Heathcare Mark. 14(1), 21–33 (1994).
  • Ferguson RP, Wettle T, Dubitzky D et al Relative importance to elderly patients of effectiveness, adverse effects, convenience and the costs of antihypertensive medications, Drugs Aging- 4,56–62 (1994).
  • McIntosh E, Ryan M. Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: implications of discontinuous preferences. J. Econ. Psychol. 23,367–382 (2002).
  • Ratcliffe J, Buxton M. Patients preferences regarding the process and outcomes of life. Int.j Technol Assess. Healthcare 15, 340–351 (1999).
  • Ryan M, Wordsworth S. Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to the levels of attributes in discrete choice experiments. Scott. Polit. Econ. 46,111–134 (2000) .
  • Ryan M, Hughes J. Using conjoint analysis to take account of patients preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ. 6, 261–273 (1997).
  • San Miguel F, Ryan M, McIntosh E. Demonstrating the use of conjoint analysis in economic evaluations: an application to menorrhagia. Appl Econ. 32,823–833 (2000).
  • Scott A, Vick S. An application of principle-agent theory to the doctor—patient relationship. Scott. J. Polit. Econ. 46,111–134 (1999).
  • Vick S, Scott A. Agency in healthcare: examining patients' preferences for attributes. J. Health Econ.17, 597–605 (1998).
  • Ryan M. Measuring benefits in healthcare the role of discrete choice experiments. Pmsented to the Second International confemnce of the International Health Economics Assodation. Rotterdam, Holland, June (1999).
  • ShacIdey P, Ryan M. Involving consumers in healthcare decision making, Healthcare Anal 3,196–204 (1995).
  • Ryan M. A role for conjoint analysis in technology assessment in healthcare? int. J. Technol Assess. Healthcare 15,443–457 (1999).
  • Ryan M, Farrar S. Eliciting preference for healthcare using conjoint analysis. Br]. Med 320,1530–1533 (2000).
  • Miedzybrodzka Z, Semper J, ShacIdey P etal Stepwise or couple antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis? Women's preferences and willingness to pay. J. Med. Genet. 32,282–283 (1995).
  • Ryan M, San Miguel E Testing for consistency in willingness to pay experiments. J. Econ. PTc. 21,305–317 (2000).
  • Krabbe PFM, EssinkBot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health state measurement methods. Soc. Sc]. Med. 45,1641–1652 (1997).
  • Van Der Pol M, Cairns J. Eliciting individuals' time preferences for own health using a dichotomous choice question with follow-up, Presented at the Fourth Annual Nordic Health Econometric workshop. Oslo, Norway, August (1998).
  • Schkade DA, Payne JW. How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Envir. Econ. 26,88–109 (1994).
  • Spoth R, Redmond C. Identifying programme preferences through conjoint analysis: illustrative results from a parent sample. Am J. Health Pmmot. 8,124–133 (1993).
  • Van Der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patients preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. Health Serv Res. Policy 3,70–76 (1998).
  • O'Brien B, Viramontes JL. Willingness to pay — a valid and reliable measure of health state preference. Med. Decis. Making 14, 289–197 (1994).
  • Loehman ET, Berg SV, Arroyo AA etal Distributional analysis of regional benefits and cost of air quality control. j Envir. Econ. 6,222–243 (1979).
  • Pennie RA, O'Connor A, Gravock M etal Factors influencing the acceptance of hepatitis B vaccine by students in health disciplines in Ottawa. Can. J. Public Health 82,12–15 (1991).
  • San Miguel F, Ryan M, Scott A. Are preferences stable: the case of healthcare? J. Econ. Behav Org. 48,1-14 (2002).
  • Bryan S, Parry D. Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in healthcare: an empirical investigation. Appl. Econ. 34 561–567 (2002).
  • Asenso-Okyere WK, Osei-Akoto I, Anum A etal Willingness to pay for health insurance in a developing country — a pilot study of the informal sector of Ghana using contingent valuation. Health Poi 42, 223–237 (1997).
  • Appel L Steinberg E Powe N et al Risk reduction from low osmality contrast media: what do patients think it's worth? Med. Care 28,324–337 (1990).
  • Berwick DM, Weinstein MC. What do patients value? Willingness to pay for ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Med. Care 23(7), 881–893 (1985).
  • Thompson MS. Willingness to pay and accept risks to cure chronic disease. Am. J. Pub. Health 76,392–396 (1986).
  • Anderson G, Black C, Dunn E etal Willingness to pay to shorten waiting time for cataract surgery. Health Affairs 16, 181–191 (1997).
  • Acton J. Evaluating public programmes to save lives: the case of heart attacks. Report no. R95ORC. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA (1973).
  • O'Brien B, Goeree R, Gafni A etal. Assessing the value of a new pharmaceutical: a feasibility study of contingent valuation in managed care. Med. Care 36 (3), 370–384 (1998) .
  • Ramsey SD, Sullivan SD, Psaty BM etal Willingness to pay for antihyperintensive care: evidence from a staff-model HIVIO. Soc. Sci. Med. 44,1911–1917 (1997).
  • Gore P, Madhavan S. Consumers' preference and willingness to pay for pharmacist counselling for non-prescription medicines. J. Cum Pharm. Themp. 19,12–25 (1994).
  • Johannesson M, Johansson B. On the value of changes in life-expectancy: blips versus parametric changes. J. Risk Um. 15, 221–239 (1997).
  • O'Brien B, Novosel S, Torrance G etal Assessing the economic value of a new antidepressant: a willingness to pay approach. PharmacoEconomics 8,34–45 (1995).
  • Osmond M, Klassen T, Quinn J. Economic comparison of a tissue adhesive and suturing in the repair of pediatric facial lacerations. J. Pediatrics 126 (6), 892–895 (1995).
  • Reutzel TJ, Furmaga E. Willingness to pay for pharmacist services in a veterans administration hospital. j Res. Pharm. Econ. 5(2), 89–114 (1993).
  • Chestnut LG, Keller LR, Lambert WE etal Measuring heart patients' willingness to pay for changes in angina symptoms. Med. Decis. Making 16,65–77 (1996).
  • Fischer GW. Willingness to pay for probibalistic improvements in health status: a psychological perspective. In: Health: What bIt Worth?Mushkin SJ, Dunlop DW (Eds). Pergamon, NY, USA, 167–200 (1979).
  • Garbacz C, Thayer M. An experiment in valuing senior companion program services. J. Hum. Res. 18,147–153 (1983).
  • Kobelt G. Economic considerations and outcome measurement in urge incontinence. Urology 50 (6), 100–107 (1997).
  • Muller A, Reutzel TJ. Willingness to pay for reduction in fatality risk: an exploratory survey. Ainj Pub. Health 74(8), 808–812 (1984).
  • Baron J. Confusion of relative and absolute risk in valuation. Risk Unc. 14,301–309 (1997).
  • Gyldmark M. Preferences for healthcare services in Denmark. An investigation through contingent valuation. Paper presented at Fourteenth Meeting of the Nordic Health Economists Group. Tromso, Norway. August (1993).
  • Olsen JA. Aiding priority setting in healthcare: is there a role for the contingent valuation method? Health Econ. 6(6), 603–612 (1997).
  • Kartman B, Andersson F, Johannesson M. Willingness to pay for reductions in angina pectoris attacks. Med. Dec. Making 16(3), 248–253 (1996).
  • Viscusi WK, Magat WA, Huber J. Pricing environmental health risks: survey assessments of risk—risk- and risk—dollar trade-offs for chronic bronchitis. j Envir Econ. 21,32–51 (1991).
  • Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R eta]. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ. 7(7), 595–603 (1998).
  • Foster V, Mourato S. Testing for consistency in contingent raking experiements. j Envir Econ. 44,302–328 (2002).
  • Ryan M, Scott D, Donaldson C. Valuing healthcare using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. J. Health Econ. (2003) (In Press).
  • Frew E, Whynes D, Wolstenholme J. Eliciting willingness to pay: comparing closed-ended with open-ended and payment scale formats. Med. Dec. Making 23,150–159 (2003).
  • Ryan M. Estimating the value of non-marketed goods: dichotomous choice willingness to pay versus choice experiments. Health Econ. Lett. (2003) (In Press).
  • Kennedy CA. Revealed preference valuation compared to contingent valuation: radon induced lung cancer prevention. Health Econ. 11,585–598 (2002).
  • Clarke PM. Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of healthcare. Health Econ. 11,117–127 (2002).
  • Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK eta]. Hypothetical versus actual willingness to pay in the healthcare sector: results from a field experiment. Health Econ. 20,441–457 (2001).
  • Onwujekwe 0. Searching for better willingness to pay elicitation method in rural Nigeria: the binary question with follow-up method versus the bidding game technique. Health Econ. 10,147-158 (2001).
  • Watson V, Ryan M, Watson E. Testing the validity of discrete choice experiments: Evidence from a Chlamydia screening study. Presented at Health Economists Study Group Meeting. Leeds, UK. January (2003).
  • Hutton J, Maynard A. A NICE challenge for health economics. Health Econ. 9, 89–93 (2000).
  • Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Williams M. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Envir Econ. 26,271–292 (1994).
  • Earnhart D. Combining revealed and stated preference methods to value environmental amenities at residential locations. Land Econ. 77(1), 12–29 (2001).
  • Swait J, Adamovicz W, Hanemann M eta]. Context dependence and aggregation in disaggregate choice analysis. Market Lett. 13(3), 195–205 (2002).
  • Loewenstein G. The creative deconstruction of decision research. J. Consum. Res. 28,499–505 (2001).
  • McFadden D. Economic choices. Am Econ. Rev 91,351–378 (2001).
  • Payne JW, Bettman JR, Schkade DA. Measuring constructed preferences: toward a building code. J. Risk Unc. 19,243-270 (1999).
  • Severn V. Comparing- statistical and mspondent efficiency in choice experiments. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Marketing, University of Sydney, Australia (2001).
  • Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. J. Risk Um. 1, 7–59 (1988).
  • Dhar R. Context and task effects on choice deferral. Market Lett. January (1997).
  • Elrod T, Louviere JJ, Davey KS. An empirical comparison of rating-based and choice-based conjoint models. J. Market Res. 29,368–377 (1992).
  • Dellaert B, Brazell JD, Louviere JJ. the effect of attribute variation on consumer choice consistency. Market. Lett. 10(2), 139–147 (1999).
  • Hensher D.A, Stopher PS, Louviere JJ. An exploratory analysis of the number of choice sets in designed choice experiments: an airline choice application. fAir Trans. 7, 373–379 (2002).
  • Wang D, Li J, Timmermans H. Reducing respondent burden, information processing effort and incomprehensibility in stated preference surveys, principles and properties of the paisrwise design strategy, Transportation Research Record, No, 1768 2001.71-78, (2001).
  • Mazzotta M, Opaluch, J. decision making when choices are complex: a test of heiner's hypothesis. Land Econ. 71(4), 500–515 (1995).
  • Deshazo JR, Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. Envir. Econ. 44(1), 123–143 (2002).
  • Cairns JM, van der Pol M, Lloyd AJ. Decision making heuristics and the elicitation of preferences: being fast and frugal about the future, Health Econ. 11, 655–658 (2002).
  • Maddala T, Phillips IKA Johnson FR. An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences. Health Econ. (2003) (In Press).
  • Amaya-Amaya M, Ryan M, Mavromaras K. The impact of complexity in stated choices in healthcare. Paper presented at the Scottish Economic Society, Annual Meeting, Glasgow, UK. January (2003).
  • Adamowicz, W Design and analysis of choice experiments: lessons from environmental economics. Paper presented at the University of Southern Denmark, Workshop on Discrete Choice Experiments. Odense, Denmark. April (2002).
  • Kahn B, Greenleaf E, Irwin J et al examining medical decision making from a marketing perspective. Marketing Lett. 8(3), 361–375 (1997).
  • Hsee CK, Kunreuther H. The affection effect in insurance decisions. f Risk Ul7C. 20,141–59 (2000).
  • Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S et al How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 9,127–152 (1978).
  • Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P et al The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefIts.J Behav. 13,1–17 (2000).
  • Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E eta]. The affect heuristic. In: Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Gilovich TD, Griffin DW, Kahneman D (Eds). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK (2001).
  • Rottenstreich Y, Hsee CK. Money, kisses and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Bychol Sci. 12, 185–190 (2001).
  • Camerer, CE Behavioral Game Themy Princeton University Press, NJ, USA (2003) (In Press).
  • Fehr E, Schmidt KM. A theory of fairness, competition and co-operation Q. J. Econ. 114, 817–868 (1999).
  • Sobel J. Social preferences and reciprocity. University of California, San Diego, CA, USA (2001).
  • Rabin M. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Arn. Econ. Rev 83(5), 1281–1302 (1993).
  • Levine D. Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Rev Econ. 4. 1, 593–622 (1998).
  • Chamess G, Rabin M. Social preferences: some simple tests and a new model. Department of Economics, University of California, Berkely, CA, USA. Working paper E00-283 (2000).
  • Bolton GE, Ockenfels A. A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. Arn. Econ. Rev 100, 166–193 (2000).
  • Andreoni J. Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and ricardian equivalence. J. Pol. Econ. 97, 1447–1458 (1989)
  • Andreoni J, Miller J. Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the rationality of altruism. Econometrica (2003) (In Press).
  • Falk A, Fehr E, Fischbacher U. On the Nature of Fair Behaviour. Econ. Ing. (2000).
  • Harsanyi, Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics and interpersonal comparisons of utility, J. Pol. Econ. 63, 309–321 (1955).
  • Mooney G. Communitarian claims as an ethical basis for allocating healthcare resources. Social Sci. Merl 47, 1171–1180 (1998).
  • Dolan P Olsen JA, Menzel P et al An inquiry into the different perspectives than can be used when eliciting preferences in health, Health Econ. (2003) (In Press).
  • Bergland 0, Magnussen K, Navrud S. Benefit transfers: testing for accuracy and reliability. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual Conference of the European of Environmental and Resource Economics Association. Unea, Sweden. June (1996).
  • Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R eta]. Choice modelling and tests of benefit transfer. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 84(1) 161–170 (2002).

Websites

  • Bateman IJ, Jones AP, Nishikawa N etal Benefits transfer in theory and practice: a review and some new studies. CSERGE and School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK (2000). www.uea.ac.uk (Accessed September 2003)
  • Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld K. A General Method for Constructing Efficient Choice Designs, SAS Working Paper. (1996). http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/rd/ 89088587,376089,1,0.25. Download/ http:qSqqSqftp.sas.comqSqtechsupqSqdow nloadqSqtechnoteqSqts629.pdf (Accessed October 2003)

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.