Smith Richard D
Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Health Policy & Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Health Econ. 2003 Aug;12(8):609-28. doi: 10.1002/hec.755.
Contingent valuation (CV) has been criticised for being too hypothetical, with expressed values bearing little relation to actual values. The magnitude of this divergence, however, depends upon how realistic and believable the contingent market is. This paper presents an overview of five key aspects in the construction of the contingent market: (i) scenario development and presentation; (ii) payment vehicle; (iii) expression of risk; (iv) time period of valuation; and (v) survey administration. CV studies in health care since 1985, totalling 111, are critically reviewed with respect to these five aspects. It is concluded that CV studies in health care have performed poorly in the construction, specification and presentation of the contingent market, and that there has been little, if any, improvement in this respect over the last 15 years. Suggestions are made concerning why this may be the case, and how the construction of the contingent market may be improved in future.
或有估值法（CV）因过于具有假设性而受到批评，其表达的价值与实际价值几乎没有关联。然而，这种差异的程度取决于或有市场的现实性和可信度。本文概述了构建或有市场的五个关键方面：（i）情景开发与呈现；（ii）支付方式；（iii）风险表达；（iv）估值时间段；以及（v）调查管理。对1985年以来的111项医疗保健领域的CV研究在这五个方面进行了批判性回顾。结论是，医疗保健领域的CV研究在或有市场的构建、规范和呈现方面表现不佳，并且在过去15年里，这方面即便有改进也微乎其微。针对为何会出现这种情况以及未来如何改进或有市场的构建提出了建议。
