IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jhecon/v66y2019icp91-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The willingness to pay for health improvement under comorbidity ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • Fujii, Yoichiro
  • Osaki, Yusuke

Abstract

Accumulated medical information is necessary to determine comorbidity risk between a primary disease and secondary diseases. However, medical decisions often must be made without conclusive evidence because individuals do not have sufficient information. By introducing ambiguity regarding comorbidities, we describe situations in which individuals face a set of plausible comorbidity risks that determines the correlations between primary and secondary diseases. This study examines the conditions under which the willingness to pay for health improvement is larger with comorbidity ambiguity than without it. This study also examines the effect of changes in ambiguity and ambiguity aversion on the willingness to pay.

Suggested Citation

  • Fujii, Yoichiro & Osaki, Yusuke, 2019. "The willingness to pay for health improvement under comorbidity ambiguity," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 91-100.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:66:y:2019:i:c:p:91-100
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.04.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629618304090
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.04.002?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bleichrodt, Han & Crainich, David & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2003. "Comorbidities and the willingness to pay for health improvements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(11), pages 2399-2406, October.
    2. Amy Finkelstein & Erzo F. P. Luttmer & Matthew J. Notowidigdo, 2009. "Approaches to Estimating the Health State Dependence of the Utility Function," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 116-121, May.
    3. Liqun Liu, 2004. "Comorbidities and the willingness to pay for reducing the risk of a targeted disease: introducing endogenous effort for risk reduction," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 493-498, May.
    4. Berger, Loïc & Bleichrodt, Han & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2013. "Treatment decisions under ambiguity," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 559-569.
    5. Arthur Snow, 2010. "Ambiguity and the value of information," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 133-145, April.
    6. Cary Deck & Harris Schlesinger, 2014. "Consistency of Higher Order Risk Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1913-1943, September.
    7. Viscusi, W Kip & Evans, William N, 1990. "Utility Functions That Depend on Health Status: Estimates and Economic Implications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 353-374, June.
    8. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
    9. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2013. "Ambiguity and robust statistics," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 974-1049.
      • Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Luigi Montrucchio, 2011. "Ambiguity and Robust Statistics," Working Papers 382, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    10. Edwards, Ryan D, 2008. "Health Risk and Portfolio Choice," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 26, pages 472-485.
    11. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    12. Louis Eeckhoudt & Béatrice Rey & Harris Schlesinger, 2007. "A Good Sign for Multivariate Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 117-124, January.
    13. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    14. Yi‐Chieh Huang & Larry Y. Tzeng, 2018. "A Mean‐Preserving Increase in Ambiguity and Portfolio Choices," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 85(4), pages 993-1012, December.
    15. David Crainich & Louis Eeckhoudt & Alain Trannoy, 2013. "Even (Mixed) Risk Lovers Are Prudent," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1529-1535, June.
    16. Kocher, Martin G. & Lahno, Amrei Marie & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion is not universal," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 268-283.
    17. Sloan, Frank A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Chesson, Harrell W. & Conover, Christopher J. & Whetten-Goldstein, Kathryn, 1998. "Alternative approaches to valuing intangible health losses: the evidence for multiple sclerosis1," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 475-497, August.
    18. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L'Haridon, 2018. "Ambiguity preferences for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1699-1716, November.
    19. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Takao Asano & Yusuke Osaki, 2023. "Cross Risk Apportionment and Non-financial Correlated Background Uncertainty," KIER Working Papers 1098, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    2. Wong, Kit Pong, 2022. "Diversification and risk attitudes toward two risks," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).

    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. Han Bleichrodt & Christophe Courbage & Béatrice Rey, 2019. "The value of a statistical life under changes in ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    3. Attema, Arthur E. & l’Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2019. "Measuring multivariate risk preferences in the health domain," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 15-24.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Harris Schlesinger & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2018. "Measuring higher order ambiguity preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 233-256, June.
    5. Michael Hoy & Richard Peter & Andreas Richter, 2014. "Take-up for genetic tests and ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 111-133, April.
    6. Christophe Courbage & Richard Peter, 2021. "On the effect of uncertainty on personal vaccination decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(11), pages 2937-2942, November.
    7. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L'Haridon, 2018. "Ambiguity preferences for health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(11), pages 1699-1716, November.
    8. Hill, Brian, 2023. "Beyond uncertainty aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 196-222.
    9. Peter Klibanoff & Sujoy Mukerji & Kyoungwon Seo, 2014. "Perceived Ambiguity and Relevant Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(5), pages 1945-1978, September.
    10. Chen Li & Uyanga Turmunkh & Peter P. Wakker, 2019. "Trust as a decision under ambiguity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 51-75, March.
    11. Kit Pong Wong, 2022. "Production and hedging under correlated price and background risks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(1), pages 241-256, June.
    12. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami & Mengxing Wei, 2018. "Quantum Decision Theory and the Ellsberg Paradox," CESifo Working Paper Series 7158, CESifo.
    13. Berger, Loic & Bosetti, Valentina, 2016. "Ellsberg Re-revisited: An Experiment Disentangling Model Uncertainty and Risk Aversion," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 236239, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Hammitt, James K. & Herrera-Araujo, Daniel & Rheinberger, Christoph, 2016. "The Value of Cancer Prevention vs Treatment," TSE Working Papers 16-628, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. Ilke Aydogan & Lo?c Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Ning Liu, 2018. "Three Layers of Uncertainty: an Experiment," Working Papers 2018.24, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    16. Loic Berger & Valentina Bosetti, 2016. "Ellsberg Re-revisited: An Experiment Disentangling Model Uncertainty and Risk Aversion," Working Papers 2016.37, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    17. Ilke AYDOGAN & Loïc BERGER & Vincent THEROUDE, 2023. "More Ambiguous or More Complex? An Investigation of Individual Preferences under Model Uncertainty," Working Papers 2023-iRisk-02, IESEG School of Management.
    18. Stefan Trautmann & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Making the Anscombe-Aumann approach to ambiguity suitable for descriptive applications," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 83-116, February.
    19. Christophe Courbage & Beatrice Rey, 2016. "On ambiguity apportionment," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 265-275, July.
    20. Victor Filipe Martins da Rocha & Rafael Mouallem, 2020. "Second-Order Beliefs and Second-Order Expected Utility," Working Papers hal-02922263, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Comorbidity ambiguity; Cost-benefit analysis; Smooth ambiguity model; α-maxmin model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:66:y:2019:i:c:p:91-100. 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: 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.