Following the money: an econometric investigation into health valuations

Abstract In 2018, two compensating‐income variation studies, based on Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia, reported sharply different monetary health values: A$42,000–A$67,000 for a full quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) gain versus A$162,000 for a 0.10 QALY loss (implying A$1.6 million per QALY under linear scaling). We embark on econometric detective work to identify the sources of these discrepancies, carefully aligning samples, cross‐examining methodologies, and uncovering methodological differences that drive the divergent results. Gain–loss framing is the largest margin (consistent with willingness‐to‐accept/willingness‐to‐pay evidence), while estimator choice (instrumental variables versus reduced form) and income equivalization further magnify differences, jointly resulting in the order‐of‐magnitude gaps with implications beyond health.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scandinavian Journal of Economics
Published
2026-05-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/sjoe.70026
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Following the money: an econometric investigation into health valuations

Tinna Laufey Ásgeirsdóttir, Viktor Andri Kárason
Scandinavian Journal of Economics
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
article

Following the money: an econometric investigation into health valuations

Tinna Laufey Ásgeirsdóttir, Viktor Andri Kárason
article en

Abstract

Abstract In 2018, two compensating‐income variation studies, based on Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia, reported sharply different monetary health values: A$42,000–A$67,000 for a full quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) gain versus A$162,000 for a 0.10 QALY loss (implying A$1.6 million per QALY under linear scaling). We embark on econometric detective work to identify the sources of these discrepancies, carefully aligning samples, cross‐examining methodologies, and uncovering methodological differences that drive the divergent results. Gain–loss framing is the largest margin (consistent with willingness‐to‐accept/willingness‐to‐pay evidence), while estimator choice (instrumental variables versus reduced form) and income equivalization further magnify differences, jointly resulting in the order‐of‐magnitude gaps with implications beyond health.

Scandinavian Journal of Economics
University of Iceland (IS)
No poverty, Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
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.