IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i5p584-592.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Total Cost Information on Consumer Treatment Decisions: An Experimental Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Regina Kwon

    (Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA)

  • Larry A. Allen

    (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
    Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Laura D. Scherer

    (Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA)

  • Jocelyn S. Thompson

    (Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Madiha F. Abdel-Maksoud

    (Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Colleen K. McIlvennan

    (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
    Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA)

  • Daniel D. Matlock

    (Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
    Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
    VA Eastern Colorado Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Denver, CO, USA)

Abstract

Background. Unrestrained use of expensive, high-risk interventions runs counter to the idea of a limited medical commons. Objective. To examine the effect of displaying the total first-year cost of implanting a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) on a hypothetical treatment decision and whether this effect differs when choosing for oneself versus for another person. Design. We conducted an online survey in February 2016. The survey described the clinical course of end-stage heart failure and the risks and benefits of an LVAD. Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 scenarios, which varied by patient identity (oneself versus another person) and description of total cost. Measurements. This study measured acceptance of LVAD implantation. Reasoning and attitudes were secondarily explored. Results. We received 1211 valid responses. The mean age was 38.3 y (±12.8); 53.5% were female and 84.4% were white. Participants were more likely to accept an LVAD when shown the total cost (66.2% v. 58.0%, P = 0.003) or when choosing for another (68.0 % v. 56.4%, P

Suggested Citation

  • Regina Kwon & Larry A. Allen & Laura D. Scherer & Jocelyn S. Thompson & Madiha F. Abdel-Maksoud & Colleen K. McIlvennan & Daniel D. Matlock, 2018. "The Effect of Total Cost Information on Consumer Treatment Decisions: An Experimental Survey," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(5), pages 584-592, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:5:p:584-592
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18773718
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18773718
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18773718?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vossler, Christian A. & Kerkvliet, Joe, 2003. "A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 631-649, May.
    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. Donald A. Redelmeier & Deva Thiruchelvam & Robert J. Tibshirani, 2022. "Testing for a Sweet Spot in Randomized Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 208-216, February.

    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. Grigoriadis, Theocharis, 2017. "Religion, administration & public goods: Experimental evidence from Russia," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 42-60.
    2. 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.
    3. Stephanie Simpson & Brid Gleeson Hanna, 2010. "Willingness to pay for a clear night sky: use of the contingent valuation method," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(11), pages 1095-1103.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    5. Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon B., 2013. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 137-147.
    6. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.
    7. H. Spencer Banzhaf & Wallace E. Oates & James N. Sanchirico, 2010. "Success and design of local referenda for land conservation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 769-798.
    8. Perni, Ángel & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: Validity and reliability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    9. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    10. Chilton, Susan M. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George, 2006. "The relative value of farm animal welfare," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 353-363, September.
    11. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren, 2017. "Referenda Under Oath," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 479-504, July.
    12. Loomis, John B., 2010. "Testing Construct Validity of River Recreation Use Values: A Comparison of Direct Elicitation of Use Values to Use Values Inferred Indirectly from WTP for Total Economic Value," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 60410, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C. & Provencher, Bill & Champ, Patricia A., 2009. "Accounting for Respondent Uncertainty to Improve Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," Staff Papers 92233, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    14. Kemper, Nathan & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Popp, Jennie & Bazzani, Claudia, 2016. "The Effects of Honesty Oath and Consequentiality in Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235381, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Christian A. Vossler, 2016. "Chamberlin Meets Ciriacy-Wantrup: Using Insights from Experimental Economics to Inform Stated Preference Research," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(1), pages 33-48, March.
    16. Bellemare, Marc F., 2012. "As You Sow, So Shall You Reap: The Welfare Impacts of Contract Farming," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 1418-1434.
    17. Uwasu, Michinori & Nelson, Erik & Polasky, Stephen, 2005. "Voting on Open Space: An Analysis of the Decision to Hold a Referendum and of Referendum Results," Staff Papers 13837, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    18. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    19. Lang, Corey & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna, 2022. "Aggregate data yield biased estimates of voter preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Matthew J. Holian & Matthew E. Kahn, 2015. "Household Demand for Low Carbon Policies: Evidence from California," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(2), pages 205-234.

    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:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:5:p:584-592. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.