Wang et al. [ 5] in Singapore found that after adjusting for health state descriptors and demographic characteristics, there was no meaningful difference in the valuation of severe health states by diabetes patients and a population without diabetes.
If such quotes were forced, and if trades were required to be reported, it could enable investors to see how similar instruments were trading, providing some sense of value and exposing differences in the valuations by various dealers.
The differences in the valuations of membership benefits across cooperative types are reported in Table 4.
The study finds that although there are differences in the valuation of public and alternative modes of transport, based on demographic elements, familiarity with car usage and psychosocial factors, most students intend to own a car as the best means of travel, with little seeming to moderate the decision.
This time differences in welfare gains (or losses) would be exclusively due to differences in the valuation of the fall of the equilibrium growth rates of future consumption (see Table 6).
It similarly generates values between.33 and 1, although demonstrates some significant differences in the valuation of some health states, particularly related to mental health attributes [ 22].
Figure 5 shows the significant geographical differences in the valuation of five of the eleven performance domains: 'effectiveness and patient safety' (p < 0.0001), 'best practice service use' (p = 0.0004), 'coordination' (p = 0.0096), 'care equity' (p = 0.0056) and 'gaming' (p = 0.0402).
There are also differences in the valuation method, with the EQ-5D valued using the time-trade off approach and the SF-6D valued using the standard gamble approach.
Both also have differences in the valuation methods used; the EQ-5D has been valued using time trade-off, while the SF-6D is a derivative of the SF-36 and was valued using standard gamble techniques [ 28].
