Economic valuation of informal care: the contingent valuation method applied to informal caregiving
Corresponding Author
Bernard van denBerg
Department of Health Policy and Management (iBMG), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research (PZO), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, iBMG/iMTA, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands===Search for more papers by this authorWerner Brouwer
Department of Health Policy and Management (iBMG), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorJob van Exel
Department of Health Policy and Management (iBMG), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorMarc Koopmanschap
Department of Health Policy and Management (iBMG), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Bernard van denBerg
Department of Health Policy and Management (iBMG), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Centre for Prevention and Health Services Research (PZO), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, iBMG/iMTA, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands===Search for more papers by this authorWerner Brouwer
Department of Health Policy and Management (iBMG), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorJob van Exel
Department of Health Policy and Management (iBMG), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorMarc Koopmanschap
Department of Health Policy and Management (iBMG), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
This paper reports the results of the application of the contingent valuation method (CVM) to determine a monetary value of informal care. We discuss the current practice in valuing informal care and a theoretical model of the costs and benefits related to the provision of informal care. In addition, we developed a survey in which informal caregivers' willingness to accept (WTA) to provide an additional hour of informal care was elicited. This method is better than normally recommended valuation methods able to capture the heterogeneity and dynamics of informal care.
Data were obtained from postal surveys. A total of 153 informal caregivers and 149 care recipients with rheumatoid arthritis returned a completed survey. Informal caregivers reported a mean WTA to provide a hypothetical additional hour of informal care of 9.52 Euro (n=124). Many hypotheses derived from the theoretical model and the literature were supported by the data.
CVM is a promising alternative for existing methods like the opportunity cost method and the proxy good method to determine a monetary value of informal care that can be incorporated in the numerator of any economic evaluation. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
References
- 1 Norton EC. Long-term care. In Handbook of Health Economics, AJ Culyer, JP Newhouse (eds). Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2000.
10.1016/S1574-0064(00)80030-X Google Scholar
- 2 Van den Berg B, Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA. Economic valuation of informal care: an overview of methods and applications. Eur J Health Econ, 2004; 5: 36–45.
- 3 Tilly J, Wiener JM, Cuellar AE. Consumer-Directed Home and Community Services Programs in Five Countries: Policy Issues for Older People and Government. No. 2000.
- 4 Russell LB, Siegel JE, Daniels N et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis as a guide to resource allocation in health: roles and limitations. In Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, MR Gold, JE Siegel, LB Russell et al. (eds). Oxford University Press: New York, 1996.
- 5 Drummond MF, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, 1997.
- 6 Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA et al. Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses. Variations in the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(1): 111–124.
- 7 Netten A. An Approach to Costing Informal Care. No. DP 637, 1990.
- 8 Luce BR, Wanning WG, Siegel JE et al. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, MR Gold, JE Siegel, LB Russell et al. (eds). Oxford University Press: New York, 1996.
- 9 Posnett J, Jan S. Indirect cost in economic evaluation: the opportunity cost of unpaid inputs. Health Econ 1996; 5(1): 13–23.
- 10 Orbell S, Hopkins N, Gillies B. Measuring the impact of informal caring. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 1993; 3: 149–163.
- 11 Kramer BJ. Gain in the caregiving experience: where are we? What next? Gerontologist 1997; 37(2): 218–232.
- 12 Hughes SL, Giobbie-Hurder A, Weaver FM et al. Relationship between caregiver burden and health-related quality of life. Gerontologist 1999; 39(5): 534–545.
- 13 Schulz R, Beach SR. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the caregiver health effects study. J Am Math Assoc 1999; 282(23): 2215–2219.
- 14 Mohide EA, Torrance GW, Streiner DL et al. Measuring the wellbeing of family caregivers using the time trade-off technique. J Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41(5): 475–482.
- 15 Brouwer WB, van Exel NJ, Koopmanschap MA et al. The valuation of informal care in economic appraisal. A consideration of individual choice and societal costs of time. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1999; 15(1): 147–160.
- 16 Drummond MF, Mohide EA, Tew M et al. Economic evaluation of a support program for caregivers of demented elderly. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991; 7(2): 209–219.
- 17 Smith K, Wright K. Informal care and economic appraisal: a discussion of possible methodological approaches. Health Econ 1994; 3(3): 137–148.
- 18 Hicks JR. The foundations of welfare economics. The Econ J 1939; 49(196): 696–712.
- 19 Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future: New York, 1989.
- 20 Johansson PO. Evaluating Health Risks: An Economic Approach. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1995.
10.1017/CBO9780511582424 Google Scholar
- 21 Diener A, O'Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ 1998; 7(4): 313–326.
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199806)7:4<313::AID-HEC350>3.0.CO;2-B CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 22 Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy 1999; 47(2): 97–123.
- 23 Olsen JA, Smith RD. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness-to-pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ 2001; 10(1): 39–52.
- 24 Bromley DW. Property rights, natural resource damage assessments. Ecol Econ 1995; 14: 129–135.
- 25 Willig RD. Consumer's surplus without apology. Am Econ Rev 1976; 66(4): 589–597.
- 26 Brown TC, Gregory R. Why the WTA – WTP disparity matters. Ecol Econ 1999; 28: 323–335.
- 27 Borisova NN, Goodman AC. Measuring the value of time for methadone maintenance clients: willingness to pay, willingness to accept, and the wage rate. Health Econ 2003; 12: 323–334.
- 28 Pauly MV. Valuing health care benefits in monetary terms. In Valuing health care: Costs, Benefits and Effectiveness of Pharmaceuticals and Other Medical Technologies, FA Sloan (ed). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1995.
10.1017/CBO9780511625817.006 Google Scholar
- 29 Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resource Econ 2001; 19: 173–210.
- 30 Fischhoff B. Value elicitation: is there anything in there? Am Psychol 1991; 46(8): 835–847.
- 31 Kahnemann D, Knetsch JL. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. J Environ Econ Manage 1992; 22: 57–70.
- 32 Milgrom P. Is sympathy an economic value? Philosophy, economics, and the contingent valuation method. In Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, JA Hausman (ed). Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, 1993.
- 33 Carson RT. Contingent valuation surveys, tests of insensitivity to scope. In Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods, RJ Kopp, WW Pommerehne, N Schwarz (eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston/Dordrecht/London, 1997.
10.1007/978-94-011-5364-5_6 Google Scholar
- 34 Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D. Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertainty 1999; 19(1–3): 203–235.
- 35 Johansson-Stenman O. On the value of life in rich, poor countries and distributional weights beyond utilitarianism. Environ Resource Econ 2000; 17: 299–310.
- 36 Donaldson C, Birch S, Gafni A. The distribution problem in economic evaluation: income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes. Health Econ 2002; 11(1): 55–70.
- 37 Baarsma B. Monetary Valuation of Environmental Goods: Alternatives to Contingent Valuation, vol. 302, University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, 2000.
- 38 Kartman B, Stalhammar NO, Johannesson M. Contingent valuation with an open-ended follow-up question: a test of scope effects. Health Econ 1997; 6(6): 637–639.
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199711)6:6<637::AID-HEC314>3.0.CO;2-V CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 39 Group TE. Euro Qol — a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Pol 1990; 16(3): 199–208.
- 40 Essink-Bot ML, Stouthard ME, Bonsel GJ. Generalizability of valuations on health states collected with the EuroQol-questionnaire. Health Econ 1993; 2(3): 237–246.
- 41 Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35(11): 1095–1108.
- 42 The EuroQol Group. 2003. EuroQol questionnaire. www.euroqol.org.
- 43 Given CW, Given B, Stommel M et al. The caregiver reaction assessment (CRA) for caregivers to persons with chronic physical and mental impairments. Res Nurs Health 1992; 15(4): 271–283.
- 44 Jacobi CE, Van den Berg B, Boshuizen HC et al. Dimension-specific burden of caregiving among partners of rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology 2003; 42: 1–8.
- 45 Smits J, Westert GP, Van den Bos GAM. Socioeconomic status of very small areas and stroke incidence in the Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002; 56: 637–640.
- 46 Jacobi CE, Triemstra M, Rupp I et al. Health care utilization among rheumatoid arthritis patients referred to a rheumatology center: unequal needs, unequal care? Arthritis Rheum 2001; 45: 324–330.
- 47 Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30.
- 48 Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Handleiding Voor Kostenonderzoek: Methoden En Richlijnprijzen Voor Economische Evaluaties in De Gezondheidszorg. College voor zorgverzekeringen: Amstelveen, 2000 (in Dutch).
- 49 Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR et al. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Register 1993; 58(10): 4601–4614.
