Karen Mulligan , Drishti Baid , Jason N. Doctor , Charles E. Phelps , Darius N. Lakdawalla
{"title":"对健康的风险偏好:经验估计和对医疗决策的影响","authors":"Karen Mulligan , Drishti Baid , Jason N. Doctor , Charles E. Phelps , Darius N. Lakdawalla","doi":"10.1016/j.jhealeco.2024.102857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Mainstream health economic theory implies that an expected gain in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) produces the same value for consumers, regardless of baseline health. Several strands of recent research call this implication into question. Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness (GRACE) demonstrates theoretically that baseline health status influences value, so long as consumers are not risk-neutral over health. Prior empirical literature casts doubt on risk-neutral expected utility-maximization in the health domain. We estimate utility over HRQoL in a nationally representative U.S. population and use our estimates to measure risk preferences over health. We find that individuals are risk-seeking at low levels of health, become risk-averse at health equal to 0.485 (measured on a 0–1 scale), and are most risk-averse at perfect health (coefficient of relative risk aversion = 4.51). We develop the resulting implications for medical decision making, cost-effectiveness analyses, and the proper theory of health-related decision making under uncertainty.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics","volume":"94 ","pages":"Article 102857"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016762962400002X/pdfft?md5=3d069fd1403395b246cadbf2b106af2d&pid=1-s2.0-S016762962400002X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk preferences over health: Empirical estimates and implications for medical decision-making\",\"authors\":\"Karen Mulligan , Drishti Baid , Jason N. Doctor , Charles E. Phelps , Darius N. Lakdawalla\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhealeco.2024.102857\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Mainstream health economic theory implies that an expected gain in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) produces the same value for consumers, regardless of baseline health. Several strands of recent research call this implication into question. Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness (GRACE) demonstrates theoretically that baseline health status influences value, so long as consumers are not risk-neutral over health. Prior empirical literature casts doubt on risk-neutral expected utility-maximization in the health domain. We estimate utility over HRQoL in a nationally representative U.S. population and use our estimates to measure risk preferences over health. We find that individuals are risk-seeking at low levels of health, become risk-averse at health equal to 0.485 (measured on a 0–1 scale), and are most risk-averse at perfect health (coefficient of relative risk aversion = 4.51). We develop the resulting implications for medical decision making, cost-effectiveness analyses, and the proper theory of health-related decision making under uncertainty.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Economics\",\"volume\":\"94 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102857\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016762962400002X/pdfft?md5=3d069fd1403395b246cadbf2b106af2d&pid=1-s2.0-S016762962400002X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016762962400002X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016762962400002X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Risk preferences over health: Empirical estimates and implications for medical decision-making
Mainstream health economic theory implies that an expected gain in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) produces the same value for consumers, regardless of baseline health. Several strands of recent research call this implication into question. Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness (GRACE) demonstrates theoretically that baseline health status influences value, so long as consumers are not risk-neutral over health. Prior empirical literature casts doubt on risk-neutral expected utility-maximization in the health domain. We estimate utility over HRQoL in a nationally representative U.S. population and use our estimates to measure risk preferences over health. We find that individuals are risk-seeking at low levels of health, become risk-averse at health equal to 0.485 (measured on a 0–1 scale), and are most risk-averse at perfect health (coefficient of relative risk aversion = 4.51). We develop the resulting implications for medical decision making, cost-effectiveness analyses, and the proper theory of health-related decision making under uncertainty.
期刊介绍:
This journal seeks articles related to the economics of health and medical care. Its scope will include the following topics:
Production and supply of health services;
Demand and utilization of health services;
Financing of health services;
Determinants of health, including investments in health and risky health behaviors;
Economic consequences of ill-health;
Behavioral models of demanders, suppliers and other health care agencies;
Evaluation of policy interventions that yield economic insights;
Efficiency and distributional aspects of health policy;
and such other topics as the Editors may deem appropriate.