Olsen J A
Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Health Econ. 1997 Nov-Dec;6(6):603-12. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199711)6:6<603::aid-hec285>3.0.co;2-2.
The paper discusses some methodological and measurement aspects with the contingent valuation (CV) method which appear to create problems when eliciting preferences for the relative social valuation of alternative health care programmes. After pointing to biases which tend to exaggerate the true valuations, emphasis is placed on framing issues when applied to health care. Thereafter the paper discusses the extent to which preferences elicited through one's willingness to pay can be used to infer how the respondent would prioritize between the health care programmes in question. New empirical evidence is presented which suggest discrepancies between a CV ranking and the ranking expressed when making a direct ordinal comparison.
本文讨论了条件价值评估（CV）方法在方法和测量方面的一些问题，这些问题在引出对替代医疗保健方案相对社会价值的偏好时似乎会产生问题。在指出倾向于夸大真实估值的偏差之后，重点讨论了该方法应用于医疗保健时的框架问题。此后，本文讨论了通过支付意愿得出的偏好可用于推断受访者如何在所讨论的医疗保健方案之间进行优先排序的程度。文中给出了新的实证证据，表明CV排名与直接进行序数比较时所表达的排名之间存在差异。
