IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/irs/cepswp/2013-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Household's willingness to pay for health microinsurance and its impact on actual take-up: results from a field experiment in Senegal

Author

Listed:
  • BONAN Jacopo
  • LEMAY-BOUCHER Philippe
  • TENIKUE Michel

Abstract

In the region of Thies in Senegal community-based health insurance schemes(CBHI)have been present for years. And yet despite the benefits they offer, there remain low take-up rates. Our paper measures the willingness to pay (WTP) for CBHI premiums in such context. Our results highlight the role of income, wealth and risk preferences as determinants of WTP. We also provide an analysis of the predictive power of WTP on the actual take-up of insurance following our offering of membership to a sample of 360 households. WTP has a positive and significant impact on actual take-up.

Suggested Citation

  • BONAN Jacopo & LEMAY-BOUCHER Philippe & TENIKUE Michel, 2013. "Household's willingness to pay for health microinsurance and its impact on actual take-up: results from a field experiment in Senegal," LISER Working Paper Series 2013-15, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    • Handle: RePEc:irs:cepswp:2013-15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.liser.lu/publi_viewer.cfm?tmp=2559
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Mccollum & Kevin Boyle, 2005. "The Effect of Respondent Experience/Knowledge in the Elicitation of Contingent Values: An Investigation of Convergent Validity, Procedural Invariance and Reliability," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(1), pages 23-33, January.
    2. DeShazo, J. R., 2002. "Designing Transactions without Framing Effects in Iterative Question Formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 360-385, May.
    3. Onwujekwe, Obinna & Nwagbo, Douglas, 2002. "Investigating starting-point bias: a survey of willingness to pay for insecticide-treated nets," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 2121-2130, December.
    4. Hermann Donfouet & Ephias Makaudze & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Eric Malin, 2011. "The determinants of the willingness-to-pay for community-based prepayment scheme in rural Cameroon," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 209-220, September.
    5. Dong, Hengjin & Kouyate, Bocar & Cairns, John & Sauerborn, Rainer, 2005. "Inequality in willingness-to-pay for community-based health insurance," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 149-156, May.
    6. Prabhu, Vimalanand S., 2010. "Tests of Intrahousehold Resource Allocation Using a CV Framework: A Comparison of Husbands' and Wives' Separate and Joint WTP in the Slums of Navi-Mumbai, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 606-619, April.
    7. Dong, Hengjin & Kouyate, Bocar & Cairns, John & Sauerborn, Rainer, 2003. "A comparison of the reliability of the take-it-or-leave-it and the bidding game approaches to estimating willingness-to-pay in a rural population in West Africa," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(10), pages 2181-2189, May.
    8. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    9. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    10. Dror, David Mark & Radermacher, Ralf & Koren, Ruth, 2007. "Willingness to pay for health insurance among rural and poor persons: Field evidence from seven micro health insurance units in India," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 12-27, June.
    11. Hong Wang & Winnie Yip & Licheng Zhang & William C. Hsiao, 2009. "The impact of rural mutual health care on health status: evaluation of a social experiment in rural China," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(S2), pages 65-82, July.
    12. Cropper, Maureen L. & Haile, Mitiku & Lampietti, Julian & Poulos, Christine & Whittington, Dale, 2004. "The demand for a malaria vaccine: evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 303-318, October.
    13. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    14. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    15. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    16. S. Viswanathan & Adriano Rampini, 2013. "Household risk management," 2013 Meeting Papers 647, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    17. Paul McNamee & Laura Ternent & Adjima Gbangou & David Newlands, 2010. "A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 75-87, January.
    18. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    19. Michael Kremer & Jessica Leino & Edward Miguel & Alix Peterson Zwane, 2011. "Spring Cleaning: Rural Water Impacts, Valuation, and Property Rights Institutions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(1), pages 145-205.
    20. Nava Ashraf & James Berry & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2010. "Can Higher Prices Stimulate Product Use? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Zambia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2383-2413, December.
    21. Shimeles, Abebe, 2010. "Community based health insurance schemes in Africa: The case of Rwanda," Working Papers in Economics 463, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    22. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    23. Hongbin Cai & Yuyu Chen & Hanming Fang & Li-An Zhou, 2009. "Microinsurance, Trust and Economic Development: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Field Experiment," PIER Working Paper Archive 09-034, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    24. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    25. Office of Health Economics, 2007. "The Economics of Health Care," For School 001490, Office of Health Economics.
    26. Paul Gertler & Jonathan Gruber, 2002. "Insuring Consumption Against Illness," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 51-70, March.
    27. Maarten J. Voors & Eleonora E. M. Nillesen & Philip Verwimp & Erwin H. Bulte & Robert Lensink & Daan P. Van Soest, 2012. "Violent Conflict and Behavior: A Field Experiment in Burundi," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 941-964, April.
    28. Shawn Cole & Xavier Gine & Jeremy Tobacman & Petia Topalova & Robert Townsend & James Vickery, 2013. "Barriers to Household Risk Management: Evidence from India," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 104-135, January.
    29. M. R. Bhatia & J. A. Fox-Rushby, 2003. "Validity of Willingness to Pay: hypothetical versus actual payment," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(12), pages 737-740.
    30. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 81, pages 752-767, Elsevier.
    31. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    32. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Per-Olov Johansson, 1998. "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-647.
    33. Deon Filmer & Lant Pritchett, 2001. "Estimating Wealth Effects Without Expenditure Data—Or Tears: An Application To Educational Enrollments In States Of India," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 38(1), pages 115-132, February.
    34. Cam Donaldson & Ruth Thomas & David Torgerson, 1997. "Validity of open-ended and payment scale approaches to eliciting willingness to pay," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 79-84.
    35. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O’Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
    36. Hengjin Dong & Bocar Kouyate & John Cairns & Frederick Mugisha & Rainer Sauerborn, 2003. "Willingness‐to‐pay for community‐based insurance in Burkina Faso," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 849-862, October.
    37. BONAN Jacopo & DAGNELIE Olivier & LEMAY-BOUCHER Philippe & TENIKUE Michel, 2012. "Is it all about Money? A Randomized Evaluations of the Impact of Insurance Literacy and Marketing Treatments on the Demand for Health Microinsurance in Senegal," LISER Working Paper Series 2012-03, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    38. Wagstaff, Adam, 2007. "The economic consequences of health shocks: Evidence from Vietnam," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 82-100, January.
    39. Frew, Emma J. & Wolstenholme, Jane L. & Whynes, David K., 2004. "Comparing willingness-to-pay: bidding game format versus open-ended and payment scale formats," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 289-298, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jonas R. Jahnert & Hato Schmeiser & Florian Schreiber, 2022. "Pricing strategies in the German term life insurance market: An empirical analysis," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 25(1), pages 19-34, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    2. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    3. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2015. "Contingent valuation of community forestry programs in Ethiopia: Controlling for preference anomalies in double-bounded CVM," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 79-89.
    4. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
    5. Kang, Heechan & Haab, Timothy C. & Interis, Matthew G., 2013. "Identifying inconsistent responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation with follow-up questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 396-411.
    6. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    7. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch, 2011. "Contingent Valuation of Community Forestry Programs in Ethiopia: Observing Preference Anomalies in Double-Bounded CVM," Working Papers 201124, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    8. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2011. "Can unbiased be tighter? Assessment of methods to reduce the bias-variance trade-off in WTP estimation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 293-314, January.
    9. Paul McNamee & Laura Ternent & Adjima Gbangou & David Newlands, 2010. "A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 75-87, January.
    10. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
    11. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Longo, Alberto, 2012. "Environmental pricing of externalities from different sources of electricity generation in Chile," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1214-1225.
    12. Satoshi Yamazaki & Steven Rust & Sarah Jennings & Jeremy Lyle & Sven Frijlink, 2013. "Valuing recreational fishing in Tasmania and assessment of response bias in contingent valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 193-213, April.
    13. Deutschmann, Joshua W. & Postepska, Agnieszka & Sarr, Leopold, 2021. "Measuring willingness to pay for reliable electricity: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    14. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    15. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    16. Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen & Mette Lundsby Jensen & Trine Kjaer, 2014. "Framing The Willingness‐To‐Pay Question: Impact On Response Patterns And Mean Willingness To Pay," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(5), pages 550-563, May.
    17. Olivier Chanel & Khaled Makhloufi & Mohammad Abu-Zaineh, 2017. "Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 385-398, June.
    18. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2017. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 777-796, November.
    19. Dahal, Ram P. & Grala, Robert K. & Gordon, Jason S. & Petrolia, Daniel R. & Munn, Ian A., 2018. "Estimating the willingness to pay to preserve waterfront open spaces using contingent valuation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 614-626.
    20. Aravena, Claudia & Hutchinson, W. George & Carlsson, Fredrik & Matthews, David I, 2015. "Testing preference formation in learning design contingent valuation (LDCV) using advanced information and repetitivetreatments," Working Papers in Economics 619, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community-based health insurance; Willingness to pay; Africa; Senegal;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:irs:cepswp:2013-15. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Library and Documentation (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepsslu.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.