IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v101y2011i3p236-244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Considering consumer choice in the economic evaluation of mandatory health programmes: A review

Author

Listed:
  • Parkinson, Bonny
  • Goodall, Stephen

Abstract

Objective Governments are increasing their focus on mandatory public health programmes following positive economic evaluations of their impact. This review aims to examine whether loss of consumer choice should be included in economic evaluations of mandatory health programmes (MHP).Method A systematic literature review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of MHP, whether they discuss the impact on consumer choice and any methodological limitations.Results Overall 39 economic evaluations were identified, of which 10 discussed the loss of consumer choice and 6 attempted to place a value on the loss of consumer choice. Methodological limitations included: measuring the marginal cost of compliance, unavailability of price elasticity estimates, the impact of income effects, double counting health impacts, biased willingness-to-pay responses, and "protest" responses. Overall it was found that the inclusion of the loss of consumer choice rarely impacted on the final outcome of the study.Conclusion The impact of MHP on the loss of consumer choice has largely been ignored in economic evaluations. Its importance remains uncertain due to its infrequent inclusion and significant methodological limitations. Further research regarding which methodology is best for valuing the loss of consumer choice and whether it is important to the final implementation decision is warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Parkinson, Bonny & Goodall, Stephen, 2011. "Considering consumer choice in the economic evaluation of mandatory health programmes: A review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 236-244, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:101:y:2011:i:3:p:236-244
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016885101000268X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Llanos, Adolfo & Hertrampf, Eva & Cortes, Fanny & Pardo, Andrea & Grosse, Scott D. & Uauy, Ricardo, 2007. "Cost-effectiveness of a folic acid fortification program in Chile," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 295-303, October.
    2. Tami L. Mark & Joffre Swait, 2004. "Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(6), pages 563-573, June.
    3. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    4. Ong, M.K. & Glantz, S.A., 2005. "Free nicotine replacement therapy programs vs implementing smoke-free workplaces: A cost-effectiveness comparison," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(6), pages 969-975.
    5. Andrew M. Jones (ed.), 2006. "The Elgar Companion to Health Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3572, March.
    6. Grosse, S.D. & Waitzman, N.J. & Romano, P.S. & Mulinare, J., 2005. "Reevaluating the benefits of folic acid fortification in the United States: Economic analysis, regulation, and public health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(11), pages 1917-1922.
    7. K. K. Lancaster, 2010. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1385, David K. Levine.
    8. Romano, P.S. & Waitzman, N.J. & Scheffler, R.M. & Pi, R.D., 1995. "Folic acid fortification of grain: An economic analysis," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 85(5), pages 667-676.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Ginsberg, G.M. & Silverberg, D.S., 1994. "A cost-benefit analysis of legislation for bicycle safety helmets in Israel," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 84(4), pages 653-656.
    11. S Birch, 1990. "The Relative Cost-effectiveness of Water Fluoridation Across Communities: Analysis of Variations According to Underlying Caries Levels," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 15, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    12. Phil Shackley & Simon Dixon, 2000. "Using contingent valuation to elicit public preferences for water fluoridation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 777-787.
    13. Emily Lancsar & Elizabeth Savage, 2004. "Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 901-907, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2013. "Using the Stated Preference Technique for Eliciting Valuations: The Role of the Payment Vehicle," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(10), pages 853-861, October.
    2. Bonny Parkinson & Stephen Goodall & Richard Norman, 2013. "Measuring the Loss of Consumer Choice in Mandatory Health Programmes Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 139-150, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    2. Daniel L. McFadden, 2013. "The New Science of Pleasure," NBER Working Papers 18687, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Goodall, Stephen & King, Madeleine & Ewing, Jane & Smith, Narelle & Kenny, Patricia, 2012. "Preferences for support services among adolescents and young adults with cancer or a blood disorder: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 304-311.
    4. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    5. Anderson, Simon P. & Foros, Øystein & Kind, Hans Jarle, 2012. "Product quality, competition, and multi-purchasing," Discussion Papers 2012/9, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    6. Veneziani, Mario & Sckokai, Paolo & Moro, Daniele, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for a functional food," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124101, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    7. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    8. Jennifer A Whitty & Simon Stewart & Melinda J Carrington & Alicia Calderone & Thomas Marwick & John D Horowitz & Henry Krum & Patricia M Davidson & Peter S Macdonald & Christopher Reid & Paul A Scuffh, 2013. "Patient Preferences and Willingness-To-Pay for a Home or Clinic Based Program of Chronic Heart Failure Management: Findings from the Which? Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-8, March.
    9. Martin Cincibuch & Jiří Podpiera, 2006. "Beyond Balassa–Samuelson: Real appreciation in tradables in transition countries1," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 14(3), pages 547-573, July.
    10. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Lusk, Jayson & Magnier, Alexandre, 2018. "The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 38-50.
    11. Katrak, Homi, 1998. "Economic analyses of Industrial Research Institutes in developing countries: the Indian experience," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 337-347, August.
    12. Ondřej Vojáček, 2011. "K pojetí preferencí v ekonomickém myšlení [Preference Dilemma in Economics]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2011(3), pages 345-358.
    13. Amir, Shmuel, 1995. "Welfare maximization in economic theory: Another viewpoint," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 359-376, August.
    14. Timothy K.M. Beatty, 2007. "Recovering the Shadow Value of Nutrients," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 52-62.
    15. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    16. Knittel Christopher R. & Stango Victor, 2008. "Incompatibility, Product Attributes and Consumer Welfare: Evidence from ATMs," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-42, January.
    17. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    18. Heiland, Inga & Kohler, Wilhelm, 2022. "Heterogeneous workers, trade, and migration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    19. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    20. Jaakko Heikkilä & Jarkko K. Niemi & Katriina Heinola & Eero Liski & Sami Myyrä, 2016. "Anything left for animal disease insurance? A choiceexperiment approach," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 97(4), pages 237-249.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:101:y:2011:i:3:p:236-244. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.