Use, option and externality values: are contingent valuation studies in health care mis-specified?
A general population sample of Australian respondents completed a contingent valuation (CV) survey that asked them to value six scenarios. These varied according to whether the scenario was seeking to elicit: (i) use value; (ii) externality value; (iii) option value; or (iv) a combination. Results indicate that use plus externality and/or option value was significantly greater than use value alone. As CV studies in health (care) overwhelmingly focus on use value alone - often implicitly through study design rather than explicitly - this raises the possibility of mis-specification in CV research in health (care). The implications for CV in health (care) are considered.
Smith
Richard D
RD
Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Richard.Smith@uea.ac.uk
D000328:Adult; D001294:Attitude to Health; D001315:Australia; D005260:Female; D005382:Financing, Personal / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006304:Health Status; D006801:Humans; D019458:Insurance Coverage / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D007348:Insurance, Health / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D008297:Male; D008603:Mental Health; D015233:Models, Statistical; D011788:Quality of Life; D012944:Social Support