IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v5y1996i6p543-558.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using willingness to pay to assess the benefits of assisted reproductive techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Mandy Ryan

Abstract

Current economic evaluations of Assisted Reproductive Techniques (ARTs) are criticized for assuming that the only factor important to users is whether they leave the service with a child. Such an approach ignores, first, outcomes beyond some narrow medical definition of success, second, the majority of users who leave the service childless and, third, the actual process of treatment. The aim of this study was to establish the importance of factors beyond some medical definition of success in the provision of ARTs, using the economic instrument of willingness to pay (WTP). The results suggest that there is some value in going through the service, even if the couple leaves it childless. It is concluded that the WTP technique is potentially useful in evaluating ARTs but further studies need to be undertaken to assess its reliability and validity.

Suggested Citation

  • Mandy Ryan, 1996. "Using willingness to pay to assess the benefits of assisted reproductive techniques," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(6), pages 543-558, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:5:y:1996:i:6:p:543-558
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199611)5:63.0.CO;2-R
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199611)5:63.0.CO;2-R
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199611)5:63.0.CO;2-R?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. Hall, Judith A. & Dornan, Michael C., 1988. "What patients like about their medical care and how often they are asked: A meta-analysis of the satisfaction literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 935-939, January.
    2. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    3. Mandy Ryan, 1994. "Agency in Health Care: Lessons for Economists from Sociologists," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 207-217, April.
    4. David E. Bell, 1985. "Disappointment in Decision Making Under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 1-27, February.
    5. Burton A. Weisbrod, 1964. "Collective-Consumption Services of Individual-Consumption Goods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 78(3), pages 471-477.
    6. Grossman, Michael, 1972. "On the Concept of Health Capital and the Demand for Health," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(2), pages 223-255, March-Apr.
    7. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June.
    8. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 1992. "The impact of grouping coarseness in alternative grouped-data regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 419-421, June.
    9. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, 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. Jeppsson, Anders & Okuonzi, Sam Agatre & Ostergren, Per-Olof & Hagstrom, Bo, 2004. "Using burden of disease/cost-effectiveness as an instrument for district health planning: experiences from Uganda," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 261-270, December.
    2. Petra Baji & Milena Pavlova & László Gulácsi & Miklós Farkas & Wim Groot, 2014. "The link between past informal payments and willingness of the Hungarian population to pay formal fees for health care services: results from a contingent valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(8), pages 853-867, November.
    3. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    6. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    7. David Cohen & Mirella F Longo & John Williams & Wai‐yee Cheung & Hayley Hutchings & I.T. Russell, 2003. "Estimating the marginal value of ‘better’ research output: ‘designed’ versus ‘routine’ data in randomised controlled trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 959-974, November.
    8. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    9. Borghi, Josephine & Jan, Stephen, 2008. "Measuring the benefits of health promotion programmes: Application of the contingent valuation method," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 235-248, August.
    10. Brouwer, Roy & Bateman, Ian J., 2005. "Benefits transfer of willingness to pay estimates and functions for health-risk reductions: a cross-country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 591-611, May.
    11. Fu, Tsu-Tan & Lin, Yih-Ming & Huang, Chung L., 2011. "Willingness to pay for obesity prevention," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 316-324, July.

    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. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    2. Carlos Laciana & Elke Weber, 2008. "Correcting expected utility for comparisons between alternative outcomes: A unified parameterization of regret and disappointment," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Ryan, Mandy, 1998. "Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 179-204, April.
    4. Raisa B. Deber & Vivek Goel, 1990. "Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 181-194, August.
    5. van Dijk, Wilco W. & van der Pligt, Joop, 1997. "The Impact of Probability and Magnitude of Outcome on Disappointment and Elation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 277-284, March.
    6. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    7. Patricia H. Born & E. Tice Sirmans, 2019. "Regret in health insurance post‐purchase behavior," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 207-219, July.
    8. Servaas van Bilsen & Roger J. A. Laeven & Theo E. Nijman, 2020. "Consumption and Portfolio Choice Under Loss Aversion and Endogenous Updating of the Reference Level," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3927-3955, September.
    9. Corina Birghila & Tim J. Boonen & Mario Ghossoub, 2023. "Optimal insurance under maxmin expected utility," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 467-501, April.
    10. Zeelenberg, M. & van Dijk, W.W. & Manstead, A.S.R., 1998. "Reconsidering the relation between regret and responsibility," Other publications TiSEM fa17bcac-aab0-4f37-8183-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Chi, Yichun & Zhuang, Sheng Chao, 2022. "Regret-based optimal insurance design," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 22-41.
    12. Lisheng He & Pantelis P. Analytis & Sudeep Bhatia, 2022. "The Wisdom of Model Crowds," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3635-3659, May.
    13. Jiakun Zheng, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Post-Print hal-04227370, HAL.
    14. Zheng, Jiakun, 2020. "Optimal insurance design under narrow framing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 596-607.
    15. Segerson, Kathleen, 1994. "Environmental Policy And Risk," 1994 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses Risk, Technical Committee Meeting, March 24-26, 1994, Gulf Shores State Park, Alabama 271555, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.
    16. Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans & Elena Katok, 2008. "Regret and Feedback Information in First-Price Sealed-Bid Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 808-819, April.
    17. van Dijk, W.W. & van der Pligt, J. & Zeelenberg, M., 1999. "Effort invested in vain : The impact of effort on the intensity of disappointment and regret," Other publications TiSEM 4746cce1-ce4d-4fea-b3c4-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2009. "Dynamic psychological games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 1-35, January.
    19. Christian Knoller, 2016. "MULTIPLE REFERENCE POINTS AND THE DEMAND FOR PRINCIPAL-PROTECTED LIFE ANNUITIES: An EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 163-179, January.
    20. Graham Loomes & Ganna Pogrebna, 2014. "Testing for independence while allowing for probabilistic choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 189-211, December.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:5:y:1996:i:6:p:543-558. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.