Skip to main content
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 9/2006

01.09.2006 | Leading Article

Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework

Some Considerations

verfasst von: Dr Emma McIntosh

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 9/2006

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

A great advantage of the stated preference discrete choice experiment (SPDCE) approach to economic evaluation methodology is its immense flexibility within applied cost-benefit analyses (CBAs). However, while the use of SPDCEs in healthcare has increased markedly in recent years there has been a distinct lack of equivalent CBAs in healthcare using such SPDCE-derived valuations. This article outlines specific issues and some practical suggestions for consideration relevant to the development of CBAs using SPDCE-derived benefits.
The article shows that SPDCE-derived CBA can adopt recent developments in cost-effectiveness methodology including the cost-effectiveness plane, appropriate consideration of uncertainty, the net-benefit framework and probabilistic sensitivity analysis methods, while maintaining the theoretical advantage of the SPDCE approach. The concept of a cost-benefit plane is no different in principle to the cost-effectiveness plane and can be a useful tool for reporting and presenting the results of CBAs.
However, there are many challenging issues to address for the advancement of CBA methodology using SPCDEs within healthcare. Particular areas for development include the importance of accounting for uncertainty in SPDCE-derived willingness-to-pay values, the methodology of SPDCEs in clinical trial settings and economic models, measurement issues pertinent to using SPDCEs specifically in healthcare, and the importance of issues such as consideration of the dynamic nature of healthcare and the resulting impact this has on the validity of attribute definitions and context.
Fußnoten
1
1 Contingent valuation is a method that uses survey questions to elicit people’s preferences for goods by asking what they would be willing to pay or receive for specified increments or decrements in the good.
 
2
2 The MRS of good X for good Y is the amount of good Y that a person is willing to give up to obtain one additional unit of good X. The MRS measures the value that the consumer places on one extra unit of a good, where the opportunity cost is quantified by the amount of another good sacrificed
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Kleinman L, McIntosh E, Ryan M, et al. Willingness to pay for complete symptom relief of gastroesophogeal reflux disease. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1361–1366PubMedCrossRef Kleinman L, McIntosh E, Ryan M, et al. Willingness to pay for complete symptom relief of gastroesophogeal reflux disease. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1361–1366PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 2002; 23: 367–382CrossRef 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 2002; 23: 367–382CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, McIntosh E, Dean T, et al. Trade-offs between location and waiting time in the provision of elective surgery. J Public Health Med 2000; 22: 202–210PubMedCrossRef Ryan M, McIntosh E, Dean T, et al. Trade-offs between location and waiting time in the provision of elective surgery. J Public Health Med 2000; 22: 202–210PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat McIntosh E, Donaldson C, Ryan M. Recent advances in the methods of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare: matching the art to the science. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 357–367PubMedCrossRef McIntosh E, Donaldson C, Ryan M. Recent advances in the methods of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare: matching the art to the science. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 357–367PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Hanson K, McPake B, Nakamba P, et al. Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2005; 14: 687–701PubMedCrossRef Hanson K, McPake B, Nakamba P, et al. Preferences for hospital quality in Zambia: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ 2005; 14: 687–701PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Slothuus Skjoldborg U, Gyrd-Hansen D. Conjoint analysis: the cost variable: an Achilles’ heel? Health Econ 2003; 12: 479–491CrossRef Slothuus Skjoldborg U, Gyrd-Hansen D. Conjoint analysis: the cost variable: an Achilles’ heel? Health Econ 2003; 12: 479–491CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments in health economics: current practice and future prospects. Health Econ 2003; 2 (1): 55–64 Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments in health economics: current practice and future prospects. Health Econ 2003; 2 (1): 55–64
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ 2004; 13: 901–907PubMedCrossRef Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ 2004; 13: 901–907PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: a response to Ryan and Santos Silva. Health Econ 2004; 13: 919–924CrossRef Lancsar E, Savage E. Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: a response to Ryan and Santos Silva. Health Econ 2004; 13: 919–924CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M. Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (1). Health Econ 2004; 13: 909–912PubMedCrossRef Ryan M. Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (1). Health Econ 2004; 13: 909–912PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Ratcliffe J. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values: proceed with caution? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000 Winter; 16: 270–275PubMedCrossRef Ratcliffe J. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values: proceed with caution? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000 Winter; 16: 270–275PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Santos Silva JMC. Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (2). Health Econ 2004; 13: 913–918CrossRef Santos Silva JMC. Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (2). Health Econ 2004; 13: 913–918CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Clarke P. Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach. J Health Econ 1998; 17: 767–787PubMedCrossRef Clarke P. Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach. J Health Econ 1998; 17: 767–787PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005 Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Cookson R. Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Econ 2003; 12: 891–894PubMedCrossRef Cookson R. Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Econ 2003; 12: 891–894PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Oliver A, Healey A, Donaldson C. Choosing the method to match the perspective: economic assessment and its implications for health services efficiency. Lancet 2002; 359: 1771–1774PubMedCrossRef Oliver A, Healey A, Donaldson C. Choosing the method to match the perspective: economic assessment and its implications for health services efficiency. Lancet 2002; 359: 1771–1774PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRef Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Adamovicz WL, Louviere J, Swait J. Introduction to attribute based stated choice methods. Submitted to Resource Valuation Branch Damage Assessment Center, NOAA -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. 1998 Jan [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/socio/statedchoicemethods.pdf [Accessed 2006 Jun 20] Adamovicz WL, Louviere J, Swait J. Introduction to attribute based stated choice methods. Submitted to Resource Valuation Branch Damage Assessment Center, NOAA -National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. 1998 Jan [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​nero.​noaa.​gov/​hcd/​socio/​statedchoicemeth​ods.​pdf [Accessed 2006 Jun 20]
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M. Using willingness to pay to assess the benefits of assisted reproductive techniques. Health Econ 1996; 5: 543–558PubMedCrossRef Ryan M. Using willingness to pay to assess the benefits of assisted reproductive techniques. Health Econ 1996; 5: 543–558PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments to value the benefits of health care [thesis]. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 2003: 1–290 McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments to value the benefits of health care [thesis]. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen, 2003: 1–290
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson C, Currie G, Mitton C. Cost effectiveness analysis in health care: contradictions. BMJ 2002; 325: 891–894PubMedCrossRef Donaldson C, Currie G, Mitton C. Cost effectiveness analysis in health care: contradictions. BMJ 2002; 325: 891–894PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998; 7: 723–740PubMedCrossRef Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ 1998; 7: 723–740PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Louviere J, Burgess L, Street D, et al. Modeling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC). Working paper no. 04-005. Sydney (NSW): University of Technology, 2004 Louviere J, Burgess L, Street D, et al. Modeling the choices of single individuals by combining efficient choice experiment designs with extra preference information. Centre for the Study of Choice (CenSoC). Working paper no. 04-005. Sydney (NSW): University of Technology, 2004
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 65S–80SCrossRef Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 65S–80SCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Polsky D, Glick H, Willke R, et al. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: a comparison of four methods. Health Econ 1997; 6: 243–252PubMedCrossRef Polsky D, Glick H, Willke R, et al. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: a comparison of four methods. Health Econ 1997; 6: 243–252PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Fieller EC. Some problems on interval estimation with discussion. J R Stat Soc 1954; 16: 175–188 Fieller EC. Some problems on interval estimation with discussion. J R Stat Soc 1954; 16: 175–188
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Kennedy P. A guide to econometrics. Oxford: Blackwells, 1995 Kennedy P. A guide to econometrics. Oxford: Blackwells, 1995
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 1979; 7: 1–26CrossRef Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 1979; 7: 1–26CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14: 339–347PubMedCrossRef Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005; 14: 339–347PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7: 595–604PubMedCrossRef Bryan S, Buxton M, Sheldon R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. Health Econ 1998; 7: 595–604PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple format stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000; 9: 295–317PubMedCrossRef Johnson FR, Banzhaf MR, Desvousges WH. Willingness to pay for improved respiratory and cardiovascular health: a multiple format stated-preference approach. Health Econ 2000; 9: 295–317PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, Desvousges WH, Ruby M, et al. Eliciting stated health preferences: an application to willingness to pay for longevity. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: Suppl. 2: 57–67CrossRef Johnson FR, Desvousges WH, Ruby M, et al. Eliciting stated health preferences: an application to willingness to pay for longevity. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: Suppl. 2: 57–67CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Magat WA, Viscusi WK, Huber J. Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 1988; 15: 395–411CrossRef Magat WA, Viscusi WK, Huber J. Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 1988; 15: 395–411CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998 Apr; 3: 70–76PubMed van der Pol M, Cairns J. Establishing patient preferences for blood transfusion support: an application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998 Apr; 3: 70–76PubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, et al. Using maximum difference conjoint and visual analogue scaling to measure patients’ utility for a particular health state. J Res Pharm Econ 1998; 9: 83–100CrossRef Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, McGhan WF, et al. Using maximum difference conjoint and visual analogue scaling to measure patients’ utility for a particular health state. J Res Pharm Econ 1998; 9: 83–100CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman JK, Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, et al. Assessing the need for student health services using maximum difference conjoint analysis. J Res Pharm Econ 1998; 9: 35–49CrossRef Freeman JK, Szeinbach SL, Barnes JH, et al. Assessing the need for student health services using maximum difference conjoint analysis. J Res Pharm Econ 1998; 9: 35–49CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Anderson NH. An exchange on functional and conjoint measurement. Psychol Rev 1971; 77: 153–170CrossRef Anderson NH. An exchange on functional and conjoint measurement. Psychol Rev 1971; 77: 153–170CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Chakraborty G, Ball D, Gaeth GJ, et al. The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares: a Monte Carlo simulation. J Bus Res 2002; 55: 237–249CrossRef Chakraborty G, Ball D, Gaeth GJ, et al. The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares: a Monte Carlo simulation. J Bus Res 2002; 55: 237–249CrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Reardon G, Pathak D. Segmenting the antihistamine market: an investigation of consumer preferences. J Health Care Mark 1990; 10: 23–33PubMed Reardon G, Pathak D. Segmenting the antihistamine market: an investigation of consumer preferences. J Health Care Mark 1990; 10: 23–33PubMed
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Boyle KJ. A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am J Agric Econ 2001; 83: 441–454CrossRef Boyle KJ. A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am J Agric Econ 2001; 83: 441–454CrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Huber J, Wittink DR, Fiedler JA, et al. The effectiveness of alternative elicitation procedures in predicting choice. J Mark Res 1993; 30: 105–114CrossRef Huber J, Wittink DR, Fiedler JA, et al. The effectiveness of alternative elicitation procedures in predicting choice. J Mark Res 1993; 30: 105–114CrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Elrod T, Louviere JJ, Davey KS. An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. J Mark Res 1992; 29: 368–377CrossRef Elrod T, Louviere JJ, Davey KS. An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. J Mark Res 1992; 29: 368–377CrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Morey ER, Rowe RD, Watson M. A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic salmon fishing. Am J Agric Econ 1993; 75: 578–592CrossRef Morey ER, Rowe RD, Watson M. A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic salmon fishing. Am J Agric Econ 1993; 75: 578–592CrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, Skatun D. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ 2004; 13: 397–402PubMedCrossRef Ryan M, Skatun D. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Econ 2004; 13: 397–402PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Small KA, Rosen HS. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 1981; 49: 105–130CrossRef Small KA, Rosen HS. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica 1981; 49: 105–130CrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: RFF Press, 1989 Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: RFF Press, 1989
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Ryan M, Gerard K. Using choice experiments to value health care programmes: where are we and where should we go? [abstract]. Third International Health Economics Association Conference; 2001 Jul 22–25; York Ryan M, Gerard K. Using choice experiments to value health care programmes: where are we and where should we go? [abstract]. Third International Health Economics Association Conference; 2001 Jul 22–25; York
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Ruby MC, Johnson FR, Mathews KE. Just say no: opt-out alternatives and anglers’ stated-preferences. Technical working paper no. T-9801 R. Durham (NC): Triangle Economic Research, 1999 Ruby MC, Johnson FR, Mathews KE. Just say no: opt-out alternatives and anglers’ stated-preferences. Technical working paper no. T-9801 R. Durham (NC): Triangle Economic Research, 1999
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Hanemann WM. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 1984; 66: 332–341CrossRef Hanemann WM. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 1984; 66: 332–341CrossRef
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Freeman AM. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1993 Freeman AM. The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 1993
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Q J Econ 1991; 106: 1039–1061CrossRef Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Q J Econ 1991; 106: 1039–1061CrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002 Bateman IJ, Carson RT, Day B, et al. Economic valuation with stated preference: a manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Roe B, Boyle KJ, Teisl MF. Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. J Environ Econ Manage 1996; 31: 145–159CrossRef Roe B, Boyle KJ, Teisl MF. Using conjoint analysis to derive estimates of compensating variation. J Environ Econ Manage 1996; 31: 145–159CrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Pearmain D, Swanson J, Kroes E, et al. Stated preference techniques: a guide to practice. Hague: Steer Davis Gleave and Hague Consulting Group, 1991 Pearmain D, Swanson J, Kroes E, et al. Stated preference techniques: a guide to practice. Hague: Steer Davis Gleave and Hague Consulting Group, 1991
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, Desvousges WH. Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. J Environ Econ Manage 1997; 34: 79–99CrossRef Johnson FR, Desvousges WH. Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. J Environ Econ Manage 1997; 34: 79–99CrossRef
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Carson RT, Louviere J, Anderson P, et al. Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters 1994; 5: 351–367CrossRef Carson RT, Louviere J, Anderson P, et al. Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters 1994; 5: 351–367CrossRef
58.
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Bergland O, Magnussen K, Navrud S. Benefit transfer: testing for accuracy and reliability. Sixth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists; 1995 Jun; Umea Bergland O, Magnussen K, Navrud S. Benefit transfer: testing for accuracy and reliability. Sixth Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists; 1995 Jun; Umea
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion paper no. 138. York: University of York, 1995 Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. Discussion paper no. 138. York: University of York, 1995
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, et al. Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am J Agric Econ 2002; 84: 161–170CrossRef Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R, et al. Choice modeling and tests of benefit transfer. Am J Agric Econ 2002; 84: 161–170CrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Blackorby C, Donaldson D. The case against the use of the sum of compensating variations in cost-benefit analysis. Can J Econ 1990; 23: 471–494CrossRef Blackorby C, Donaldson D. The case against the use of the sum of compensating variations in cost-benefit analysis. Can J Econ 1990; 23: 471–494CrossRef
63.
Zurück zum Zitat McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9 (14): 1–218PubMed McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9 (14): 1–218PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework
Some Considerations
verfasst von
Dr Emma McIntosh
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2006
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 9/2006
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624090-00004

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2006

PharmacoEconomics 9/2006 Zur Ausgabe