Responsibility-sensitive welfare weights for health

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Health Economics
Published
2025-06-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2025.103018
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Employment and Welfare Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.45

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Responsibility-sensitive welfare weights for health

Owen O’Donnell, Tom Van Ourti, Matthew Robson
3 citations
Journal of Health Economics
Employment and Welfare Studies
8.45
article

Responsibility-sensitive welfare weights for health

Owen O’Donnell, Tom Van Ourti, Matthew Robson
article en
3 citations

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.

Journal of Health EconomicsVol. 102
Tinbergen Institute (NL), Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Wellcome Trust, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Employment and Welfare Studies
8.45
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.