Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 55, Issue 1, pp 29–39 | Cite as

Average willingness to pay for disease prevention with personalized health information

  • David Crainich
  • Louis Eeckhoudt


Personal health related information modifies individuals’ willingness to pay for disease prevention programs inasmuch as it allows health status assessment based on intrinsic (instead of average) characteristics. In this paper, we examine the effect that personalized information about the baseline probability of disease has on the average willingness to pay for programs reducing either the probability of disease (self-protection) or the severity of disease (self-insurance). We show that such information raises the average willingness to pay for self-protection while it increases the average willingness to pay for self-insurance if health and wealth are complements (i.e. the marginal utility of wealth rises with health).


Personalized health information Willingness to pay Disease prevention Self-protection Self-insurance 

JEL Classification

D81 I18 



We thank seminar participants at the Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense University, at the JESF meeting in Créteil, at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, at the EGRIE meeting in St Gallen, at the IHEA/ECHE Congress in Dublin, at the University of Dijon and at EM Lyon Business School for constructive comments on earlier versions of the paper. We also thank Christian Gollier and an anonymous referee for helpful suggestions.


  1. Barnett, J., Timotijevic, L., Shepherd, R., & Senior, V. (2007). Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones. Health Policy, 82, 240–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, L., Bleichrodt, H., & Eeckhoudt, L. (2013). Treatment decisions under ambiguity. Journal of Health Economics, 32(3), 559–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop, K., & Murphy, A. (2011). Estimating the willingness to pay to avoid violent crime: A dynamic approach. The American Economic Review, 101(3), 625–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleichrodt, H., Crainich, D., & Eeckhoudt, L. (2003). Comorbidities and the willingness to pay for health improvements. The Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2399–2406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryis, E., & Schlesinger, H. (1990). Risk aversion and the propensities for self-insurance and self-protection. Southern Economic Journal, 57, 458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2000). Willingness to pay for improved air quality in Sweden. Applied Economics, 32(6), 661–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crainich, D., Eeckhoudt, L., & Hammitt, J. (2015). The value of risk reduction: New tools for an old problem. Theory and Decision, 79(3), 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dachraoui, K., Dionne, G., Godfroid, P., & Eeckhoudt, L. (2004). Comparative mixed risk aversion: Definition and application to self-protection and willingness to pay. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 29(3), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dionne, G., & Eeckhoudt, L. (1985). Self-insurance, self-protection and increased risk aversion. Economics Letters, 17(1-2), 39–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drèze, J. (1962). L’utilité sociale d’une vie humaine. Revue Française de Recherche Opérationnelle, 22, 139–155.Google Scholar
  11. Eeckhoudt, L., & Hammitt, J. (2001). Background risks and the value of a statistical life. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(3), 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrlich, I., & Becker, G. (1972). Market insurance, self-insurance and self-protection. Journal of Political Economy, 80, 623–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans, W., & Viscusi, W. (1991). Estimation of state-dependent utility functions using survey data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 73, 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finkelstein, A., Luttmer, E., & Notowidigdo, M. (2009). Approaches to estimating the health state dependence of the utility function. The American Economic Review, 99, 116–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammitt, J. (2000). Valuing mortality risk: Theory and practice. Environmental Science and Technology, 34, 1396–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hammitt, J., & Treich, N. (2007). Statistical vs. identified lives in benefit-cost analysis. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 35(1), 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoy, M., Peter, R., & Richter, A. (2014). Take-up for genetic tests and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48(2), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hsieh, C.-R., Yen, L.-L., Liu, J.-T., & Lin, C.J. (1996). Smoking, health knowledge, and anti-smoking campaigns: An empirical study in Taiwan. The Journal of Health Economics, 15, 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones-Lee, M. (1974). The value of changes in the probability of death or injury. The Journal of Political Economy, 82(4), 835–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones-Lee, M., Hammerton, M., & Philips, P. (1985). The value of safety: Results of a national sample survey. The Economic Journal, 95(377), 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mishan, E. (1971). Evaluation of life and limb: A theoretical approach. The Journal of Political Economy, 79(4), 687–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Misra, S., Huang, C., & Ott, S. (1991). Consumer willingness to pay for pesticide-free fresh produce. The Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 16(2), 218–227.Google Scholar
  23. Nixon, H., & Saphores, J.-D. (2007). Financing electronic waste recycling Californian households’ willingness to pay advanced recycling fees. Journal of Environmental Management, 84(4), 547–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Phillips, K., Homan, R., Luft, H., Hiatt, P., Olson, K., Kearney, T., & Heard, S. (1997). Willingness to pay for poison control centers. The Journal of Health Economics, 16(3), 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pratt, J., & Zeckhauser, R. (1996). Willingness to pay and the distribution of risk and wealth. The Journal of Political Economy, 104(4), 747–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schelling, T. (1968). The life you save may be your own. In Chase, S. B. (Ed.) Problems in public expenditure analysis. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  27. Sloan, F., Viscusi, W., Chesson, W., Conover, C., & Whetten-Goldstein, K. (1998). Alternative approaches to valuing intangible health losses: The evidence for multiple sclerosis. The Journal of Health Economics, 17, 475–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Snow, A. (2011). Ambiguity aversion and the propensities for self-insurance and self-protection. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Viscusi, W., & Evans, W. (1990). Utility functions that depend on health status: Estimates and economic implications. The American Economic Review, 80, 353–374.Google Scholar
  30. Yaari, M. (1987). The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica, 55(1), 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS (LEM, UMR 9221)LilleFrance
  2. 2.Iéseg School of ManagementLilleFrance
  3. 3.LEM (UMR 9221)LilleFrance

Personalised recommendations