Clinical performance and Willingness To Pay for soft toric contact lenses in low and moderate astigmats.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical performance and the 'Willingness To Pay' for toric vs. spherical soft contact lenses in an astigmatic population. METHODS: In the clinical study, subjects with binocular low to moderate astigmatism (-0.75DC to -1.50DC) wore pairs of soft toric (Biofinity toric) and spherical (Biofinity) contact lenses in random sequence. Visual acuity (high and low contrast, monocular and binocular), subjective comfort and subjective vision were recorded. In the economics study, first subjects who had participated in the clinical study were presented with a series of randomised economic scenarios in order to determine their Willingness To Pay a premium (i.e. an increase) for toric lenses. Then, a similar set of scenarios were presented to a much larger group of online respondents and again, Willingness To Pay was established. RESULTS: For the four measures of visual acuity, the Biofinity toric lens out-performed the Biofinity spherical lens by 0.6 to 1.1 lines.. Subjective vision performance was statistically significantly better with the toric lens for the distance task only. Comfort scores were not significantly different. Similar findings for Willingness To Pay were established for the clinical subjects and for the online respondents. The Willingness To Pay premium (additional fee) for a monthly supply of toric lenses (over spherical lenses) was between £13 and £16, if a toric lens provides better vision and similar comfort, as shown in the clinical study. CONCLUSION: Consumers are willing to pay a monthly premium of around 50% to benefit from the typical experience of better vision and similar comfort for toric vs. spherical lenses. The level of additional cost for toric lenses compared to their spherical equivalents is less than this in the market, so eye care professionals should consider that toric lenses are delivering a greater clinical return than anticipated by wearers for the relatively small increase in price.

Combining revealed and stated preference models for artificial reef siting: A study in the Florida Keys.

This paper investigates divers' preferences for artificial reef diving and willingness to pay (WTP) for large ship, artificial reef site attributes in the Florida Keys. We investigate diver demand for existing decommissioned ships that have been sunk off the Florida Keys as well as demand for four new vessels that are available for disposal from the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration inventory. Using survey data from divers, we compare revealed preference (RP) site choices, stated preference (SP) choices from a discrete choice experiment, and joint RP/SP choices. Our analysis also incorporates stated attribute non-attendance (ANA) at the choice-task level. Our results indicate that the joint RP/SP models with stated ANA are preferred, leading to decreases in marginal WTP as well as decreases in the variability of marginal WTP estimates in the 95% confidence intervals. Results provide a framework for directing more efficient future decision making regarding sinkings at locations that will enhance welfare for divers.

Altruistic and Private Values For Saving Lives With an Oyster Consumption Safety Program.

We use data from an Internet-based survey and estimate the benefits of an oyster consumption safety policy with the contingent valuation method. In addition to providing a context-specific estimate of willingness-to-pay for oyster safety, we consider an important issue in the contingent valuation mortality risk reduction literature. A number of studies find that willingness-to-pay for mortality risk reduction is not sensitive to the scope of the risk change. We present the scope test as a difference in the number of lives saved by the program, instead of small changes in risk, and find that referendum votes are responsive to scope. A third feature of this article is that we identify those at-risk respondents who would most benefit from the policy and decompose willingness-to-pay into use values and altruistic nonuse values. We find that willingness-to-pay per life saved ranges from $3.95 million to $7.69 million for the private good of lives saved when the respondent is at risk (i.e., use values). Willingness-to-pay per life saved including both use and altruistic nonuse values ranges from $6.89 million to $12.87 million.