IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jhecon/v102y2025ics0167629625000530.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Responsibility-sensitive welfare weights for health

Author

Listed:
  • Robson, Matthew
  • O’Donnell, Owen
  • Van Ourti, Tom

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Robson, Matthew & O’Donnell, Owen & Van Ourti, Tom, 2025. "Responsibility-sensitive welfare weights for health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:102:y:2025:i:c:s0167629625000530
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2025.103018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629625000530
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2025.103018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Experiment; Ethical preferences; Inequality aversion; Prioritisation; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Equity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D30 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - General
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • I14 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Inequality
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    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:eee:jhecon:v:102:y:2025:i:c:s0167629625000530. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505560 .

    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.