IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Reassurance, regret and uncertainty: testing ex ante sources of (dis)utility and the welfarist account of social welfare

Listed author(s):
  • Jeff Richardson


    (Centre for Health Economics, Monash University)

  • John McKie


    (Centre for Health Economics, Monash University)

This paper considers an issue that has received little attention in the literature on health state evaluation: the relevance of the ex ante/ex post distinction in the assessment of quality of life. Ex post evaluations are based on experience of the health state being evaluated. Ex ante evaluations are made in anticipation of actually experiencing the health state, and are able to capture sources of pre-outcome (dis)utility such as anticipatory fear, anxiety, hope and dread. Which perspective should be used for economic evaluation? From the welfarist perspective it might be argued that ex ante evaluations should be used, because all sources of utility are relevant. From the extra-welfarist perspective it might argued that ex post evaluations should be used, because economic evaluation should be based solely on realised outcomes, at least in the context of a publicly financed health service. We sought the views of the Australian public on this issue. Using social willingness to pay questions, we asked respondents to select between alternative health services which either did, or did not, take pre-outcome sources of utility into account. Respondents were asked whether or not tax payers should pay a higher price for services that increased pre-outcome utility, and for which patients would be prepared to pay personally. They were also asked whether they would accept less spending on other health services for services that increased pre-outcome utility. The results indicated little support for welfarism. Of respondents, only 32.6 per cent would accept an increase in taxes for everyone to provide a service preferred by patients for its reassurance. Only 29.8 per cent would accept an increase in taxes to provide a service preferred by patients for its minimisation of potential for regret. Less decisively, 43.1 per cent would accept an increase in taxes to provide a service preferred by patients for its avoidance of uncertainty. On average, only 28.6 per cent of respondents would accept less spending on other health services to provide these services. The implications of these findings for economic evaluation studies are, first, that the Australian community does not believe that the purpose of its publicly financed health system should be to increase utility as defined by private willingness to pay and, second, that the gold standard for health-state measurement should elicit ex post evaluations from patients, not ex ante evaluations from the public.

If 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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Monash University, Centre for Health Economics in its series Centre for Health Economics Working Papers with number 153/05.

in new window

Length: 21 pages
Date of creation: Jan 2005
Handle: RePEc:mhe:chewps:2005-153
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Building 75, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia

Phone: +61-3-9905-0733
Fax: +61-3-9905-8344
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mhe:chewps:2005-153. 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: (Teresa Cheong)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.