IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pecuniary compensation increases participation in screening for colorectal cancer


  • Eline Aas

    (Institute of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway)


The participation rate in medical screening programmes is typically below 100%, which means that not all potential health benefits are fully exploited. In this paper, the prospect of pecuniary compensation is tested as a method of increasing the participation rate. We propose a model explaining the individual's probability of participating in screening for colorectal cancer when he is offered pecuniary compensation, given that he did not participate when first invited. The participant's decision is based on both known and uncertain factors. The estimation is conducted in two steps, where a binary probit model is used in each. We find that pecuniary compensation increases the probability of participation, and that an individual's participation probability systematically varies with variables such as travel expenses, income, age, education level, expected benefit from the screening, use of health-care services, genetic predisposition and subjective health status. Using the results from the estimation, we predict changes in the participation rate for different levels of compensation and estimate the cost per additional individual screened. The cost per additional individual screened is 808, including 25 in compensation; this cost increases with the level of compensation. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Eline Aas, 2009. "Pecuniary compensation increases participation in screening for colorectal cancer," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 337-354.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:3:p:337-354
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.1371

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Antonio Giuffrida & Hugh Gravelle, 1998. "Paying patients to comply: an economic analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 569-579.
    2. Buekens, P. & Kotelchuck, M. & Blondel, B. & Kristensen, F.B. & Chen, J.-H. & Masuy- Stroobant, G., 1993. "A comparison of prenatal care use in the United States and Europe," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 83(1), pages 31-36.
    3. Pauly, Mark V. & Held, Philip J, 1990. "Benign moral hazard and the cost-effectiveness analysis of insurance coverage," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 447-461, December.
    4. Jon Strand, 2007. "Public-good valuation and intra-family allocation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(4), pages 527-543, December.
    5. Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Jes Søggard & Ole Kronborg, 1998. "Colorectal cancer screening: efficiency and effectiveness," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 9-20.
    6. Célia Berchi & Jean-Marc Dupuis & Guy Launoy, 2006. "The reasons of general practitioners for promoting colorectal cancer mass screening in France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(2), pages 91-98, June.
    7. Grossman, Michael, 1972. "On the Concept of Health Capital and the Demand for Health," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(2), pages 223-255, March-Apr.
    8. Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Jes Søgaard, 2001. "Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 617-634.
    9. Newhouse, Joseph P., 2006. "Reconsidering the moral hazard-risk avoidance tradeoff," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 1005-1014, September.
    10. Byrne, Margaret M. & Thompson, Peter, 2001. "Screening and preventable illness," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 1077-1088, November.
    11. Hoel, Michael, 2007. "What should (public) health insurance cover?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 251-262, March.
    12. Walker, Andrew & Whynes, David K., 1991. "Participation and screening programmes for colorectal cancer: More would be better?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 207-225, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Franz Hackl & Martin Halla & Michael Hummer & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2015. "The Effectiveness of Health Screening," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(8), pages 913-935, August.
    2. You, Kai, 2011. "Education, risk perceptions, and health behaviors," MPRA Paper 35535, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:wly:hlthec:v:18:y:2009:i:3:p:337-354. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.