对责任敏感的健康福利权重

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Matthew Robson , Owen O’Donnell , Tom Van Ourti
{"title":"对责任敏感的健康福利权重","authors":"Matthew Robson ,&nbsp;Owen O’Donnell ,&nbsp;Tom Van Ourti","doi":"10.1016/j.jhealeco.2025.103018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We estimate welfare weights for health to facilitate program evaluation allowing for aversion to health inequality and to health inequity by three non-health characteristics. In a UK general population sample, 569 online experiment participants distribute constrained resources to determine the health of hypothetical individuals distinguished by randomly generated resource productivity as well as sex, income and smoking (41,460 observations). We elicit beliefs about responsibility for income and smoking, and use their associations with the allocations to estimate responsibility-sensitive weights for health by those two characteristics. We find weak prioritisation of females’ health, moderate prioritisation of the health of poorer individuals and strong prioritisation of the health of non-smokers over that of smokers. Substantial aversion to health inequality lowers weights on females and non-smokers, who are health-advantaged, and raises the weight on the poor, who are health-disadvantaged. As beliefs about responsibility for income and smoking strengthen, weights on the poor decrease and weights on non-smokers significantly increase.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics","volume":"102 ","pages":"Article 103018"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Responsibility-sensitive welfare weights for health\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Robson ,&nbsp;Owen O’Donnell ,&nbsp;Tom Van Ourti\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhealeco.2025.103018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>We estimate welfare weights for health to facilitate program evaluation allowing for aversion to health inequality and to health inequity by three non-health characteristics. In a UK general population sample, 569 online experiment participants distribute constrained resources to determine the health of hypothetical individuals distinguished by randomly generated resource productivity as well as sex, income and smoking (41,460 observations). We elicit beliefs about responsibility for income and smoking, and use their associations with the allocations to estimate responsibility-sensitive weights for health by those two characteristics. We find weak prioritisation of females’ health, moderate prioritisation of the health of poorer individuals and strong prioritisation of the health of non-smokers over that of smokers. Substantial aversion to health inequality lowers weights on females and non-smokers, who are health-advantaged, and raises the weight on the poor, who are health-disadvantaged. As beliefs about responsibility for income and smoking strengthen, weights on the poor decrease and weights on non-smokers significantly increase.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Economics\",\"volume\":\"102 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103018\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629625000530\",\"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/S0167629625000530","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们估计健康的福利权重,以促进项目评估,允许通过三个非健康特征来规避健康不平等和健康不平等。在英国的一个普通人群样本中,569名在线实验参与者分配了有限的资源,以确定按随机生成的资源生产率、性别、收入和吸烟情况区分的假设个体的健康状况(41,460个观察值)。我们引出了关于收入和吸烟的责任的信念,并利用它们与分配的关联来估计这两个特征对健康的责任敏感权重。我们发现女性健康的优先级较低,较贫穷个人的健康的优先级较低,非吸烟者的健康优先级高于吸烟者。对健康不平等的严重厌恶降低了健康有利的女性和不吸烟者的体重,并增加了健康不利的穷人的体重。随着对收入和吸烟责任的信念的加强,穷人的权重降低,而不吸烟者的权重显著增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Responsibility-sensitive welfare weights for health
We estimate welfare weights for health to facilitate program evaluation allowing for aversion to health inequality and to health inequity by three non-health characteristics. In a UK general population sample, 569 online experiment participants distribute constrained resources to determine the health of hypothetical individuals distinguished by randomly generated resource productivity as well as sex, income and smoking (41,460 observations). We elicit beliefs about responsibility for income and smoking, and use their associations with the allocations to estimate responsibility-sensitive weights for health by those two characteristics. We find weak prioritisation of females’ health, moderate prioritisation of the health of poorer individuals and strong prioritisation of the health of non-smokers over that of smokers. Substantial aversion to health inequality lowers weights on females and non-smokers, who are health-advantaged, and raises the weight on the poor, who are health-disadvantaged. As beliefs about responsibility for income and smoking strengthen, weights on the poor decrease and weights on non-smokers significantly increase.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Health Economics
Journal of Health Economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.90%
发文量
96
审稿时长
49 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信