Patient Preferences and Treatment Thresholds under Diagnostic Risk – An Economic Laboratory Experiment
AbstractWe study risk aversion and prudence in medical treatment decisions. In a laboratory experiment, we investigate the frequency and intensity of second- and third-order risk preferences, as well as the effect of the medical decision context. Risk preferences are assessed through treatment thresholds (the indifference point between not treating and treating). Under diagnostic risk, medical decision theory predicts lower thresholds for risk-averse than risk-neutral decision makers. Given a comorbidity risk, prudent individuals have an even lower threshold. Our results demonstrate risk-averse and prudent behavior in medical decisions, which reduce the (average) treatment threshold by 41% relative to risk neutrality (from 50.0% to 29.3% prevalence rate). Risk aversion accounts for 3/4 of this effect, prudence for 1/4. The medical decision framing does not affect risk aversion, but is associated with more and stronger prudent behavior. These findings have consequences for treatment thresholds, diagnostics, and QALYs, and thus for clinical guidelines.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen in its series Ruhr Economic Papers with number 0321.
Length: 33 pages
Date of creation: Mar 2012
Date of revision:
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-03-21 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2012-03-21 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2012-03-21 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-HEA-2012-03-21 (Health Economics)
- NEP-UPT-2012-03-21 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
- Stefan Felder & Thomas Mayrhofer, 2011. "Higher-Order Risk Preferences – Consequences for Test and Treatment Thresholds and Optimal Cutoffs," Ruhr Economic Papers 0287, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
- Louis Eeckhoudt & Harris Schlesinger, 2005.
"Putting Risk in its Proper Place,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
1462, CESifo Group Munich.
- Karen E. Dynan, 1993. "How prudent are consumers?," Working Paper Series / Economic Activity Section 135, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
- Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011.
"Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences,"
Journal of the European Economic Association,
European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, 06.
- Dohmen, Thomas J. & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Sunde, Uwe & Schupp, Jürgen & Wagner, Gert G., 2011. "Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences," Munich Reprints in Economics 20048, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Dohmen Thomas & Falk Armin & Huffman David & Sunde Uwe & Schupp Jürgen & Wagner Gert, 2009. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants and Behavioral Consequences," ROA Research Memorandum 007, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
- Dohmen, Thomas J. & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Sunde, Uwe & Schupp, Jürgen & Wagner, Gert G., 2009. "Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences," Munich Reprints in Economics 20049, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Dohmen Thomas & Falk Armin & Huffman David & Sunde Uwe & Schupp Jürgen & Wagner Gert G., 2009. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants and Behavioral Consequences," Research Memorandum 039, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
- Dynan, Karen E, 1993. "How Prudent Are Consumers?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(6), pages 1104-13, December.
- Gerald Richardson & Andrea Manca, 2004. "Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(12), pages 1203-1210.
- Louis Eeckhoudt & Christian Gollier, 2005. "The impact of prudence on optimal prevention," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 989-994, November.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- John List, 2003.
"Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?,"
Natural Field Experiments
00297, The Field Experiments Website.
- John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71, February.
- John A. List, 2003.
"Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace,"
NBER Working Papers
9736, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, 03.
- John List, 2004. "Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace," Framed Field Experiments 00174, The Field Experiments Website.
- Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
- Charles N. Noussair & Stefan T. Trautmann & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2014.
"Higher Order Risk Attitudes, Demographics, and Financial Decisions,"
Review of Economic Studies,
Oxford University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 325-355.
- Noussair, C.N. & Trautmann, S.T. & Kuilen, G. van de, 2011. "Higher Order Risk Attitudes, Demographics, and Financial Decisions," Discussion Paper 2011-055, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Mohammed Abdellaoui & Ahmed Driouchi & Olivier L’Haridon, 2011. "Risk aversion elicitation: reconciling tractability and bias minimization," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 63-80, July.
- Christophe Courbage & Béatrice Rey, 2006. "Prudence and optimal prevention for health risks," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1323-1327.
- Peter Wakker & Daniel Deneffe, 1996. "Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1131-1150, August.
- Eeckhoudt, L. & Lebrun, T. & Sailly, J. C., 1985.
"Risk-aversion and physicians' medical decision-making,"
Journal of Health Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 273-281, September.
- Eeckhoudt, L. & Lebrun, T.H. & Sailly, J.C., 1984. "Risk-Aversion and Physicians' Medical Decision-Making," Cahiers de recherche 8438, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
- Santos-Pinto, Luís & Astebro, Thomas & Mata, José, 2009.
"Preference for Skew in Lotteries: Evidence from the Laboratory,"
17165, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Thomas Astebro & José Mata & Luis Santos-Pinto, 2009. "Preference for Skew in Lotteries: Evidence from the Laboratory," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du DÃ©partement d'EconomÃ©trie et d'Economie politique (DEEP) 09.09, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, DEEP.
- Sebastian Ebert & Daniel Wiesen, 2011. "Testing for Prudence and Skewness Seeking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1334-1349, July.
- Amiram Gafni & George W. Torrance, 1984. "Risk Attitude and Time Preference in Health," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 440-451, April.
- Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
- BLEICHRODT, Han & CRAINICH, David & EECKHOUDT, Louis, .
"The effect of comorbidities on treatment decisions,"
CORE Discussion Papers RP
-1668, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Bleichrodt, Han & Crainich, David & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2003. "The effect of comorbidities on treatment decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 805-820, September.
- Eike B. Kroll & Judith N. Trarbach & Bodo Vogt, 2011. "Determining risk preferences for pain," FEMM Working Papers 110006, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sabine Weiler).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.