IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pui/dpaper/106.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating Demand for Long-term Care Insurance in Thailand: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Worawan Chandoevwit
  • Nada Wasi

Abstract

At present, the Thai public health insurance schemes cover medical care. However, the financial risk associated with long-term care needs is unprotected. The increasing likelihood of Thai elderly living longer and living alone has raised great concern about their quality of life. In the wake of the declining informal support capacity, a public long-term care insurance (LTCI) system has been considered as a potential alternative. Because the public will have to contribute to the LTCI fund, this paper explores whether the Thai people are willing to pay for such a provision. The LTCI demand is estimated based on the stated preference survey data. Our results show that most respondents are willing to pay to insure against their risk associated with long-term care expenditure, but their preferences are very heterogeneous. Gains and losses for different policy scenarios, measured by consumer surplus, are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Worawan Chandoevwit & Nada Wasi, 2019. "Estimating Demand for Long-term Care Insurance in Thailand: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," PIER Discussion Papers 106, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:pui:dpaper:106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.pier.or.th/files/dp/pier_dp_106.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frederik T. Schut & Bernard Berg, 2012. "Long-Term Care Insurance in the Netherlands," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Joan Costa-Font & Christophe Courbage (ed.), Financing Long-Term Care in Europe, chapter 7, pages 103-124, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni, 2008. "Eliciting the demand for long‐term care coverage: a discrete choice modelling analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 411-433, March.
    3. Cremer, Helmuth & Roeder, Kerstin, 2013. "Long-term care policy, myopia and redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 33-43.
    4. Burda, Martin & Harding, Matthew & Hausman, Jerry, 2008. "A Bayesian mixed logit-probit model for multinomial choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 232-246, December.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    6. Carol Propper, 1995. "The Disutility of Time Spent on the United Kingdom's National Health Service Waiting Lists," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 30(4), pages 677-700.
    7. Hsiao,Cheng & Pesaran,M. Hashem & Lahiri,Kajal & Lee,Lung Fei (ed.), 1999. "Analysis of Panels and Limited Dependent Variable Models," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521631693, January.
    8. Joan Costa-Font & Christophe Courbage (ed.), 2012. "Financing Long-Term Care in Europe," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-34919-3, 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. Yong Wei & Liangwen Zhang, 2020. "Analysis of the Influencing Factors on the Preferences of the Elderly for the Combination of Medical Care and Pension in Long-Term Care Facilities Based on the Andersen Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-14, 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. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, September.
    2. Michael P. Keane, 2013. "Panel data discrete choice models of consumer demand," Economics Papers 2013-W08, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    3. Pierre Dubois & Rachel Griffith & Martin O'Connell, 2020. "How Well Targeted Are Soda Taxes?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(11), pages 3661-3704, November.
    4. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    5. Steven T. Berry & Philip A. Haile, 2021. "Foundations of Demand Estimation," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2301, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    6. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    7. Burda, Martin & Harding, Matthew & Hausman, Jerry, 2012. "A Poisson mixture model of discrete choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 166(2), pages 184-203.
    8. Martin Burda & Remi Daviet, 2023. "Hamiltonian sequential Monte Carlo with application to consumer choice behavior," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 54-77, January.
    9. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    10. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni, 2008. "Eliciting the demand for long‐term care coverage: a discrete choice modelling analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 411-433, March.
    11. Maria Letizia GIORGETTI & Maria Luisa MANCUSI, 2016. "Entry and Patenting in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Departmental Working Papers 2016-02, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    12. 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.
    13. Griffith, Rachel & O'Connell, Martin & Miller, Helen, 2011. "Corporate taxes and the location of intellectual property," CEPR Discussion Papers 8424, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. I. G. Ukpong & K. G. Balcombe & I. M. Fraser & F. J. Areal, 2019. "Preferences for Mitigation of the Negative Impacts of the Oil and Gas Industry in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(2), pages 811-843, October.
    15. Chandoevwit, Worawan & Wasi, Nada, 2020. "Incorporating discrete choice experiments into policy decisions: Case of designing public long-term care insurance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    16. Bansal, Prateek & Daziano, Ricardo A. & Achtnicht, Martin, 2018. "Comparison of parametric and semiparametric representations of unobserved preference heterogeneity in logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 97-113.
    17. Patricia Apps & Jan Kabátek & Ray Rees & Arthur Soest, 2016. "Labor supply heterogeneity and demand for child care of mothers with young children," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 1641-1677, December.
    18. Bazzani, Claudia & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2018. "On the use of flexible mixing distributions in WTP space: an induced value choice experiment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(2), April.
    19. Cohen, Michael, 2010. "A Structured Covariance Probit Demand Model," Research Reports 149970, University of Connecticut, Food Marketing Policy Center.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Long-term Care Insurance; Discrete Choice Experiment; Discrete Choice Model; Unobserved Heterogeneity; Demand for LTCI; Willingness to Pay;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I13 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Insurance, Public and Private
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • J58 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - Public Policy
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General

    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:pui:dpaper:106. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pierbth.html .

    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.