IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v106y2016i6p1562-65.html

Optimal Expectations and Limited Medical Testing: Evidence from Huntington Disease: Corrigendum

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Oster
  • Ira Shoulson
  • E. Ray Dorsey

Abstract

We use novel data to study genetic testing among individuals at risk for Huntington disease (HD), a hereditary disease with limited life expectancy. Although genetic testing is perfectly predictive and carries little economic cost, presymptomatic testing is rare. Testing rates increase with increases in ex ante risk of having HD. Untested individuals express optimistic beliefs about their health and make decisions (e.g., retirement) as if they do not have HD, even though individuals with confirmed HD behave differently. We suggest that these facts can be reconciled by an optimal expectations model (Brunnermeier and Parker 2005). (JEL D84, I12)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Oster & Ira Shoulson & E. Ray Dorsey, 2016. "Optimal Expectations and Limited Medical Testing: Evidence from Huntington Disease: Corrigendum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1562-1565, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:106:y:2016:i:6:p:1562-65
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/aer.106.6.1562
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.106.6.1562
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Oster & Ira Shoulson & E. Ray Dorsey, 2016. "Optimal Expectations and Limited Medical Testing: Evidence from Huntington Disease: Corrigendum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1562-1565, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francesco Capozza & Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2021. "Studying Information Acquisition in the Field: A Practical Guide and Review," CEBI working paper series 21-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    2. Celse, Jeremy & Karakostas, Alexandros & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2023. "Relative risk taking and social curiosity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 243-264.
    3. Iizuka, Toshiaki & Nishiyama, Katsuhiko & Chen, Brian & Eggleston, Karen, 2021. "False alarm? Estimating the marginal value of health signals," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Dessí, Roberta & Ren, Junjie & Zhao, Xiaojian, 2023. "Shame, Guilt, and Motivated Self-Confidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 18629, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Cohen, Jessica & Saran, Indrani, 2018. "The impact of packaging and messaging on adherence to malaria treatment: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 68-95.
    6. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    7. Eleonora Freddi, 2021. "Do People Avoid Morally Relevant Information? Evidence from the Refugee Crisis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 103(4), pages 605-620, October.
    8. Rehse, Dominik & Tremöhlen, Felix, 2022. "Fostering participation in digital contact tracing," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    9. Chadi, Adrian & Homolka, Konstantin, 2022. "Little Lies and Blind Eyes – Experimental Evidence on Cheating and Task Performance in Work Groups," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 122-159.
    10. Kops, Christopher & Pasichnichenko, Illia, 2023. "Testing negative value of information and ambiguity aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    11. Amalia R. Miller & Catherine Tucker, 2017. "Frontiers of Health Policy: Digital Data and Personalized Medicine," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(1), pages 49-75.
    12. Chater, Nick & Loewenstein, George, 2016. "The under-appreciated drive for sense-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PB), pages 137-154.
    13. Michael Thaler, 2024. "The Fake News Effect: Experimentally Identifying Motivated Reasoning Using Trust in News," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 1-38, May.
    14. Linda Thunström, 2019. "Welfare effects of nudges: The emotional tax of calorie menu labeling," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(1), pages 11-25, January.
    15. Lohse, Johannes & McDonald, Rebecca, 2021. "Absolute groupishness and the demand for information," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242454, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    16. Nikolaus Schweizer & Nora Szech, 2018. "Optimal Revelation of Life-Changing Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(11), pages 5250-5262, November.
    17. Yufeng Li & Juanjuan Meng & Changcheng Song & Kai Zheng, 2021. "Information Avoidance and Medical Screening: A Field Experiment in China," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4252-4272, July.
    18. Jan B. Engelmann & Maël Lebreton & Nahuel A. Salem-Garcia & Peter Schwardmann & Joël J. van der Weele, 2024. "Anticipatory Anxiety and Wishful Thinking," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(4), pages 926-960, April.
    19. Pagel, Michaela & Olafsson, Arna, 2017. "The Ostrich in Us: Selective Attention to Financial Accounts, Income, Spending, and Liquidity," CEPR Discussion Papers 12259, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. John H. Cochrane, 2017. "Macro-Finance," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 21(3), pages 945-985.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:106:y:2016:i:6:p:1562-65. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.