IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v10y2012i6p407-415.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Explains Willingness to Pay for Smoking-Cessation Treatments —Addiction Level, Quit-Rate Effectiveness or the Opening Bid?

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Olsen
  • Ole Røgeberg
  • Knut Stavem

Abstract

Background: Several countries have now passed laws that place limitations on where smokers may smoke. A range of smoking-cessation treatments have become available, many of which have documented increased quit rates. Population surveys show that most smokers wish to quit, and most nonsmokers would prefer to reduce the prevalence of smoking in society. The strengths of these preferences, however, as measured by their willingness to pay (WTP), have not yet been investigated. Objective: This study aims to identify variables that explain variations in people’s answers to WTP questions on smoking-cessation treatments. Methods: A representative sample of the Norwegian population was asked their WTP in terms of an earmarked contribution to a public smokingcessation programme. A sub-group of daily smokers was, in addition, asked about their WTP for a hypothetical treatment that would remove their urge to smoke. The impact of variation in the question format (different opening bids) on stated WTP was compared with that of factors suggested by economic theory, such as quit-rate effectiveness, degree of addiction as measured by the 12-item Cigarette Dependence Scale (CDS-12), and degree of peer group influence as measured by the proportion of one’s friends who smoke. Results: In both programmes, the most important determinant for explaining variations in WTP was the size of the opening bid. Differences in quit-rate effectiveness did not matter for people’s WTP for the smoking-cessation programme. Addiction, and having a small proportion of friends who smoke, were positively associated with smokers’ WTP to quit smoking. Conclusion: Variations in WTP were influenced more by how the question was framed in terms of differences in opening bids, than by variables reflecting the quality (effectiveness) and need (addiction level) for the good in question. While the WTP method is theoretically attractive, the findings that outcomes in terms of different quit rates did not affect WTP, and that WTP answers can be manipulated by the chosen opening bid, should raise further doubts on the ability of this method to provide valid and reliable answers that reflect true preferences for health and healthcare. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Olsen & Ole Røgeberg & Knut Stavem, 2012. "What Explains Willingness to Pay for Smoking-Cessation Treatments —Addiction Level, Quit-Rate Effectiveness or the Opening Bid?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 407-415, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:10:y:2012:i:6:p:407-415
    DOI: 10.1007/BF03261875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF03261875
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF03261875?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
    ---><---

    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. Henrik Hammar & Olof Johansson‐Stenman, 2004. "The value of risk‐free cigarettes – do smokers underestimate the risk?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 59-71, January.
    2. Leu, Robert E., 1984. "Anti-smoking publicity, taxation, and the demand for cigarettes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 101-116, August.
    3. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    4. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam & Pereira, Joao, 2004. "The insensitivity of 'willingness-to-pay' to the size of the good: New evidence for health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 445-460, August.
    5. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    6. D. Gyrd‐Hansen & T. Kjær & J. S. Nielsen, 2012. "Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 101-112, February.
    7. Alan Shiell & Lisa Gold, 2003. "If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 909-919, November.
    8. Brian V. Krauth, 2005. "Peer effects and selection effects on smoking among Canadian youth," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 735-757, August.
    9. Paul McNamee & Laura Ternent & Adjima Gbangou & David Newlands, 2010. "A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 75-87, January.
    10. Stirling Bryan & Paul Dolan, 2004. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(3), pages 199-202, September.
    11. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    12. Beattie, Jane & Covey, Judith & Dolan, Paul & Hopkins, Lorraine & Jones-Lee, Michael & Loomes, Graham & Pidgeon, Nick & Robinson, Angela & Spencer, Anne, 1998. "On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 1--Caveat Investigator," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 5-25, October.
    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. Jon Helgheim Holte & Peter Sivey & Birgit Abelsen & Jan Abel Olsen, 2016. "Modelling Nonlinearities and Reference Dependence in General Practitioners' Income Preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 1020-1038, August.

    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. Balmford, Ben & Bateman, Ian J. & Bolt, Katherine & Day, Brett & Ferrini, Silvia, 2019. "The value of statistical life for adults and children: Comparisons of the contingent valuation and chained approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 68-84.
    2. David K. Whynes & Zoë Philips & Emma Frew, 2005. "Think of a number… any number?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(11), pages 1191-1195, November.
    3. Jon Helgheim Holte & Peter Sivey & Birgit Abelsen & Jan Abel Olsen, 2016. "Modelling Nonlinearities and Reference Dependence in General Practitioners' Income Preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 1020-1038, August.
    4. Nicolas Krucien & Amiram Gafni & Nathalie Pelletier‐Fleury, 2015. "Empirical Testing of the External Validity of a Discrete Choice Experiment to Determine Preferred Treatment Option: The Case of Sleep Apnea," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 951-965, August.
    5. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    6. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    7. Colin Green & Karen Gerard, 2009. "Exploring the social value of health‐care interventions: a stated preference discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(8), pages 951-976, August.
    8. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.
    9. Sund, Björn, 2009. "Sensitivity to scope in contingent valuation – introducing a flexible community analogy to communicate mortality risk reductions," Working Papers 2009:2, Örebro University, School of Business.
    10. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2005. "Implicit versus explicit ranking: On inferring ordinal preferences for health care programmes based on differences in willingness-to-pay," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 990-996, September.
    11. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    12. D. Gyrd‐Hansen & T. Kjær & J. S. Nielsen, 2012. "Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation studies of health care services: should we ask twice?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 101-112, February.
    13. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of ‘reference goods’ in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to ‘construct’ their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332, December.
    14. Phil Shackley & Simon Dixon, 2014. "The Random Card Sort Method And Respondent Certainty In Contingent Valuation: An Exploratory Investigation Of Range Bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(10), pages 1213-1223, October.
    15. Jacopo Bonan & Philippe LeMay-Boucher & Michel Tenikue, 2014. "Households' Willingness to Pay for Health Microinsurance and its Impact on Actual Take-up: Results from a Field Experiment in Senegal," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(10), pages 1445-1462, November.
    16. Leiter, Andrea M. & Pruckner, Gerald J., 2006. "Proportionality of Willingness to Pay to Small Risk Changes - The Impact of Attitudinal Factors in Scope Tests," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12225, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    17. Jytte Seested Nielsen & Susan Chilton & Hugh Metcalf, 2019. "Improving the risk–risk trade-off method for use in safety project appraisal responses," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(1), pages 61-86, January.
    18. Farr, Marina & Stoeckl, Natalie & Alam Beg, Rabiul, 2014. "The non-consumptive (tourism) ‘value’ of marine species in the Northern section of the Great Barrier Reef," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 89-103.
    19. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Harris, Paul & Whitty, Jennifer A. & Kendall, Elizabeth & Ratcliffe, Julie & Wilson, Andrew & Littlejohns, Peter & Scuffham, Paul A., 2018. "The importance of population differences: Influence of individual characteristics on the Australian public’s preferences for emergency care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 115-125.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:10:y:2012:i:6:p:407-415. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.