Willingness to pay for telecare programmes to support independent living: results from a contingent valuation study.

An ageing population provokes an economic interest in the resource allocation questions posed by long-term care and critically, the development of sustainable community-based health and social care models that support independent living. This paper explores Irish citizens preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for a range of community-based care programmes, including different telecare programmes that support older people to continue living at home. The paper reports on a cross-sectional multi-good contingent valuation survey conducted between April and September 2009 with three representative samples of the Irish population (N = 1214) to identify rankings and preferences for different community care programmes including: family care programme, a state-provided care programme and three different telecare programmes. The survey design permits the identification of strength, direction and relative preferences of different forms of community care provision. We also investigate convergent validity between ranking and willingness to pay results. We find that while people place significant value on formal state care provision and on telecare programmes, willingness to pay (WTP) estimates continue to highlight the importance of family care, which remains the strongest preference of the Irish population for the provision of community-based care for older people in the country. Respondents weakened their ranking preferences in the WTP exercise. However, both the direction of ranking and WTP estimates confirm the importance of family care. While all telecare programmes generated some economic value, telecare associated with social connection had much stronger support than telecare used to support physical or cognitive care needs. This paper offers unique information on societal values for different forms of community care provision, and in particular, the direction of preferences for technology-based approaches.

[1]  C. Donaldson,et al.  Helicopters, hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. , 1998, Social science & medicine.

[2]  B. Kriström.  Spike Models in Contingent Valuation , 1997 .

[3]  T Klose,et al.  The contingent valuation method in health care. , 1999, Health policy.

[4]  L. Venkatachalam.  The contingent valuation method: a review , 2004 .

[5]  G. Garrod,et al.  Modelling zero values and protest responses in contingent valuation surveys , 2003 .

[6]  P. Shackley,et al.  Implicit versus explicit ranking: on inferring ordinal preferences for health care programmes based on differences in willingness-to-pay. , 2005, Journal of health economics.

[7]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence , 2000 .

[8]  P. Shackley,et al.  Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in health care , 2001 .

[9]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  The Theory and Measurement of Passive‐Use Value , 2001 .

[10]  J. G. Cragg.  Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods , 1971 .

[11]  P. Shackley,et al.  Should we use willingness to pay to elicit community preferences for health care? New evidence from using a 'marginal' approach. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[12]  M. Limited.  Study to examine the future financing of long-term care in Ireland , 2003 .

[13]  Andrew M. Jones,et al.  Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care , 1998 .

[14]  M. Ryan,et al.  Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. , 2004, Journal of health economics.

[15]  M. Drummond,et al.  Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Public Policy@@@Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes , 1988 .

[16]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History , 2012 .

[17]  Jan Abel Olsen,et al.  Willingness to pay for public health care: a comparison of two approaches. , 2004, Health policy.

[18]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Contingent Valuation in Practice , 2003 .

[19]  M. Morelle,et al.  Cancer patients’ willingness to pay for blood transfusions at home: results from a contingent valuation study in a French cancer network , 2012, The European Journal of Health Economics.

[20]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[21]  P. Shackley,et al.  Contingent Valuation in Health Care , 2012 .

[22]  A. Nolan,et al.  Ireland's Health Care System: Some Issues and Challenges , 2004 .

[23]  Lennart Magnusson,et al.  A literature review study of Information and Communication Technology as a support for frail older people living at home and their family carers , 2004 .

[24]  Richard D. Smith.  Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care: a critical assessment. , 2003, Health economics.

[25]  Paul R. Portney,et al.  The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care , 1994 .

[26]  J. Richardson,et al.  Preferences for the normative basis of health care priority setting: some evidence from two countries. , 2013, Health Economics.

[27]  Emma Frew,et al.  Valuing telecare using willingness to pay from the perspective of carers for people with dementia: a pilot study from the West Midlands , 2014, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[28]  Kieran Walsh,et al.  Perceptions, Preferences, and Acceptance of Information and Communication Technologies in Older-Adult Community Care Settings in Ireland: A Case-Study and Ranked-Care Program Analysis , 2011 .