Trade-offs between location and waiting times in the provision of health care: the case of elective surgery on the Isle of Wight.

BACKGROUND Recent UK government documents have stated that, within the National Health Service, consumers should be more involved in decision-making. This study considered the technique of discrete choice conjoint analysis (DCCA) for eliciting community views regarding the importance of reducing waiting times. More specifically, the study aimed to establish whether residents living on the Isle of Wight are prepared to travel to the mainland for elective surgery where waiting times are shorter but travel costs may be greater, and, further, if residents are willing to travel, what reduction in waiting time and increase in travel costs would be acceptable. METHODS A DCCA questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 1,000 individuals living on the Isle of Wight. RESULTS Seventy-eight per cent of respondents were willing to travel to the mainland for elective surgery. Of these, 48 per cent always chose the mainland and 30 per cent traded between island and mainland, depending on the levels of waiting time and travel costs. Whereas 'traders' preferred the Isle of Wight, they would forgo their preferred location if waiting times were reduced by at least 3.9 months, and they were willing to pay over 12 for a 1 month reduction in waiting time. Different combinations of waiting time reductions and travel cost increases that were acceptable to traders were estimated. CONCLUSIONS Carrying out elective surgery on the mainland offers the potential to reduce waiting lists for island residents. The majority of respondents would be willing to travel to the mainland. However, one-fifth of respondents were not willing to travel to the mainland for elective surgery. The preferences of this group are important in policy decisions. More generally, the paper demonstrates the potential application of DCCA to public health issues.

[1]  R. Luce,et al.  Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .

[2]  Peter E. Kennedy A Guide to Econometrics , 1979 .

[3]  D. Emery,et al.  Axiomatic and numerical conjoint measurement: An evaluation of diagnostic efficacy , 1979 .

[4]  G Kocur,et al.  GUIDE TO FORECASTING TRAVEL DEMAND WITH DIRECT UTILITY ASSESSMENT , 1981 .

[5]  John P. Robinson,et al.  Questions and answers in attitude surveys , 1982 .

[6]  D. Wittink,et al.  Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey , 1982 .

[7]  Joel Huber,et al.  Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation , 1988 .

[8]  E P Kroes,et al.  STATED PREFERENCE TECHNIQUES: A GUIDE TO PRACTICE , 1990 .

[9]  C. Propper Contingent Valuation of Time Spent on NHS Waiting Lists , 1990 .

[10]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[11]  James J. Opaluch,et al.  Siting Noxious Facilities: An Approach That Integrates Technical, Economic, and Political Considerations , 1992 .

[12]  T. F. Weaver,et al.  Evaluating Impacts from Noxious Facilities: Including Public Preferences in Current Siting Mechanisms , 1993 .

[13]  Priority setting in purchasing. , 1993, British journal of hospital medicine.

[14]  L. Southgate,et al.  Explorations in consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting in an inner London health district. , 1993, Social science & medicine.

[15]  Public disagrees with professionals over NHS rationing , 1993, BMJ.

[16]  C. Webb,et al.  The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion. , 1994, Journal of advanced nursing.

[17]  W. Sykes,et al.  Consulting the public about health service priorities , 1995, BMJ.

[18]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using Conjoint Analysis to Value Surgical Versus Medical Management of Miscarriage , 1995 .

[19]  C. Propper The Disutility of Time Spent on the United Kingdom's National Health Service Waiting Lists , 1995 .

[20]  B. New,et al.  Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries? , 1996, BMJ.

[21]  K. Stronks,et al.  Who should decide? Qualitative analysis of panel data from public, patients, healthcare professionals, and insurers on priorities in health care , 1997, BMJ.

[22]  P. Shackley,et al.  Using willingness to pay to value close substitutes: carrier screening for cystic fibrosis revisited. , 1997, Health economics.

[23]  C. Warwick The new NHS: modern dependable , 1998 .

[24]  C. Donaldson,et al.  Willingness to pay: a method for measuring preferences for maternity care? , 1998, Birth.

[25]  J. Cairns,et al.  Establishing Patient Preferences for Blood Transfusion Support: An Application of Conjoint Analysis , 1998, Journal of health services research & policy.

[26]  M. Buxton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the investigation of knee injuries: an investigation of preferences. , 1998, Health economics.

[27]  M Ryan,et al.  Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. , 1998, Health economics.

[28]  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.

[29]  P. Shackley,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to elicit the views of health service users: an application to the patient health card , 1998, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[30]  M. Ryan Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. , 1999, Social science & medicine.