Adler, M. A., & Posner, E. A. (2006). New foundations for benefit-cost analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Alberini, A., & Kahn, J. R. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook on contingent valuation. Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Aldy, J. E., & Viscusi, W. K. (2007). Age differences in the value of statistical life: revealed preference evidence. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 1(2), 241–260.Google Scholar
Arias, E. (2010). United States life tables, (2006). National Vital Statistics Reports 58(21). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bateman, I. J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, T. C. (1982). When is a man’s life worth more than his human capital? In: M. Jones-Lee (Ed.), The value of life and safety. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Blomquist, G. (2004). Self-protection and averting behavior, values of statistical lives, and benefit cost analysis of environmental policy. Review of the Economics of the Household 2, 89–110.Google Scholar
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L.. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Bosworth, R., Cameron, T. A., & DeShazo, J. R. (2010). Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? comparing demand for public prevention and treatment policies. Medical Decision Making 30(4), E40–E56.Google Scholar
Cameron, T. A. (2010). Euthanizing the value of a statistical life. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4(2), 161–178.Google Scholar
Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation: a comprehensive bibliography and history. Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. J., & Brown, T. C. (Eds.) (2003). A primer on non-market valuation. Boston MA: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cropper, M., Hammitt, J. K., & Robinson, L. A. (2011). Valuing mortality risk reductions: progress and challenges. Annual Review of Resource Economics 3, 313–336.Google Scholar
Cropper, M., & Morgan, M. G. (2007). SAB Advisory on EPA’s issues in valuing mortality risk reduction. Memorandum to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson from the EPA Science Advisory Board and Environmental Economics Advisory Committee. (EPA-SAB-08-001.)Google Scholar
European Commission. (2009). Impact Assessment Guidelines. SEC(2009) 92.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, E. A., Corso, P. S., & Miller, T. R. (2006). The incidence and economic burden of injuries in the United States. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, A. M. III. (2003). The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods (2nd ed.), Washington D. C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Hammitt, J. K. (2000). Valuing mortality risk: theory and practice. Environmental Science and Technology 34, 1396–1400.Google Scholar
Hammitt, J. K. (2007). Valuing changes in mortality risk: lives saved versus life years saved. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 1(2), 228–240.Google Scholar
Hammitt, J. K. (2009). Response: saving lives: benefit-cost analysis and distribution. University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra 157, 189–199.Google Scholar
Hammitt, J. K., & Robinson, L. A. (2011). The income elasticity of the value per statistical life: transferring estimates between high and low income populations. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 2, Art. 1.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W. M. (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? American Economic Review 81, 635–647.Google Scholar
Hirth, R. A., Chernew, M. E., Miller, E., Fendrick, A. M., & Weissert, W. G. (2000). Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Medical Decision Making 20, 332–342.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
HM Treasury. (2003). The green book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: TSO. (Includes 2011 updates.)Google Scholar
Hunt, A., & Ferguson, J. (2010). A review of recent policy-relevant findings from the environmental health literature. Prepared for the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. ENV/EPOC/WPNEP(2009)9/FINAL.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine. (2006). Valuing health for regulatory cost-effectiveness analysis. In: W. Miller, L. A. Robinson & R. S. Lawrence. (Eds.), Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, F. R., Fries, E. E., & Banzhaf, H. S. (1997). Valuing morbidity: an integration of the willingness-to-pay and health-status index literatures. Journal of Health Economics 16, 641–665.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1), 192–206.Google Scholar
Kling, C. L., & Swackhamer, D. L. (2011). Review of ‘valuing mortality risk reductions for environmental policy: a white paper’ (December 10, 2010). Memorandum to Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator from the EPA Science Advisory Board and Environmental Economics Advisory Committee. EPA-SAB-11-011.Google Scholar
Knetsch, J. L. (2010). Values of gains and losses: reference states and choices of measure. Environment and Resource Economics 46(2), 179–188.Google Scholar
Krupnick, A. (2007). Mortality-risk valuation and age: stated preference evidence. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 1(2), 261–282.Google Scholar
Lipscomb, J., Drummond, M., Fryback, D., Gold, M., & Revicki, D. (2009). Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value in Health 12(Supp. 1), S18–S26.Google Scholar
Lindhjem, H., Navrud, S., Braathen, N. A., & Biausque, V. (2011). Valuing mortality risk reductions from environmental, transport, and health policies: a global meta-analysis of stated preference studies. Risk Analysis 31(9), 1381–1407.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lund, J. L., Yabroff, K. R., Ibuka, Y., Russell, L. B., Barnett, P. G., Lipscomb, J., ... Brown, M. L. (2009). Inventory of data sources for estimating health care costs in the United States. Medical Care 47(7), S120–S126.Google Scholar
Murray, C. J. L., & Lopez, A. D. (Eds.) (1996). The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
National Academies. (2008). Estimating mortality risk reduction and economic benefits from controlling ozone air pollution. Committee on estimating mortality risk reduction benefits from decreasing tropospheric ozone exposure. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NERA Economic Consulting. (2011). Updating the VPF and VPIs: phase 1: final report. Prepared for the United Kingdom Department for Transport.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Mortality risk valuation in environment, health and transport policies. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Robinson, L. A. (2007). How U.S. government agencies value mortality risk reductions. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 1(2), 283–299.Google Scholar
Robinson, L. A. (2009). Valuing lives, valuing risks, and respecting preferences in regulatory analysis. Regulation and Governance 3(3), 298–305.Google Scholar
Robinson, L. A., & Hammitt, J. K. (2011a). Valuing health and longevity in regulatory analysis: current issues and challenges. In: D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The handbook of the politics of regulation. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Robinson, L. A., & Hammitt, J. K. (2011b). Behavioral economics and the conduct of benefit-cost analysis: towards principles and standards. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 2(2), Art. 5.Google Scholar
Svensson, M., & Johansson, M. V. (2010). Willingness to pay for private and public road safety in stated preference studies: why the difference? Accident Analysis and Prevention 42, 1205–1212.Google Scholar
Thorat, T., Cangelosi, M., & Neumann, P. J. (2012). Skills of the trade: the Tufts cost-effectiveness analysis registry. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 3(1), Art. 1.Google Scholar
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat. (2007). Canadian cost-benefit analysis guide: regulatory proposals (Interim).Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
US Department of Transportation. (2011). Treatment of the economic value of a statistical life in departmental analyses – 2011 interim adjustment. Memorandum to Secretarial Officers and Modal Administrators from P. Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary For Transportation Policy, and R. Rivkin, General Counsel.Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2010a). Valuing mortality risk reductions for environmental policy: a white paper (Review Draft). Prepared by the National Center for Environmental Economics for consultation with the Science Advisory Board – Environmental Economics Advisory Committee.Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2010b). Guidelines for preparing economic analysis. EPA 240-R-10-001.Google Scholar
US Office of Management and Budget. (2003). Circular A-4: regulatory analysis.Google Scholar
Van Houtven, G., Powers, J., Jessup, A., & Yang, J.-C. (2006). Valuing avoided morbidity using meta-regression analysis: what can health status measures and QALYs tell us about WTP? Health Economics 15, 775–795.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar
Viscusi, W. K. (2009). The devaluation of life. Regulation and governance 3, 103–127.Google Scholar
Willig, R. D. (1976). Consumer’s surplus without apology. The American Economic Review 66(4), 589–597.Google Scholar
Yabroff, K. R., Brown, M. L., Lawrence, W. F., Barnett, P. G., & Lipscomb, J. (Eds.). (2009). Health care costing: data, methods, future directions. Medical Care 47(7), Supplement 1.Google Scholar
About the article
Published Online: 2013-03-28
This trade-off also can be represented by individual willingness to accept compensation (WTA): the smallest amount an individual would accept to forego the improvement. WTP is the compensating variation and WTA is the equivalent variation for the improvement. In the sections that follow, we refer to WTP for convenience, because WTP studies dominate the health risk valuation literature and policy analyses typically address improvements from the status quo rather than compensation for forgoing the improvement. We discuss the distinction between WTP and WTA in the final section.
Another revealed preference approach considers averting behaviors; i.e., defensive measures or consumer products used to protect against perceived health risks (see, for example, reviews by Blomquist, 2004; Viscusi and Aldy, 2003). These studies are applied infrequently in benefit-cost analysis due to concerns about their limitations, including the difficulty of estimating the size of the risk change associated with many behaviors and the need to separately estimate the value of key inputs such as the time spent in the activity.
For example, for US regulatory analysis, best practice guidance is provided in U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (2003) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010b). Boardman, Greenberg, Vining, and Weimer (2011) also discuss related issues.
This is true only in the short run because everyone eventually dies. Policies extend lives rather than saving them; the deaths prevented by the policy are delayed to a later date and possibly shifted to another cause.
VSL can also be viewed as aggregating individual WTP across a population; i.e., a $600 average individual WTP×10,000 affected individuals=$6.0 million. Because both the risk reduction and WTP are likely to vary by individual, it is more accurate to first determine each individual’s WTP for the risk reduction he or she would receive then aggregate. However, the data needed to calculate these values on an individualized basis are often unavailable.
As noted below, an increasing number of studies directly estimate the value of life extension, but more work is needed to establish robust estimates suitable for use in policy analysis.
Viscusi and Aldy (2003) review over 60 wage-risk studies conducted globally. The Lindhjem et al. database [described in more detail in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2012], includes 74 stated preference surveys from around the world, of which 37 address traffic safety, 30 address public health or health risks from unidentified causes, and 17 address environmental risks. (Some surveys address more than one risk type.)
One Canadian dollar was worth roughly 1 US dollar at the time this manuscript was prepared.
All values are converted to US dollars based on current exchange rates using the Google currency converter (which relies on Citibank data), as viewed May 2, 2012.
In practice, VSL is generally not adjusted for income differences within a particular population, but is adjusted for population-wide income changes over time or income differences across countries. In the U.S., there has been substantial debate about adjusting VSL to reflect age differences, particularly over the use of lower values for older individuals (i.e., the “senior discount”) (Robinson, 2007, 2009; Viscusi, 2009). While this lack of adjustment for population characteristics is often framed as an equity issue, applying the same value regardless of the characteristics of those affected ignores their preferences for spending on health risk reductions rather than on other goods and services.
In particular, Lund et al. (2009) provides a comprehensive inventory of sources of cost estimates. For injuries, Finkelstein, Corso, and Miller (2006) present incidence-based estimates of lifetime costs per case, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide an injury cost calculator as part of the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) website (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html).
The cost of this treatment is nevertheless a social cost, and savings in this cost can be added to estimates of WTP when calculating the total benefits of the policy as long as care is taken to avoid double-counting.
A closely related measure, the disability-adjusted life year (DALY), was developed as an egalitarian indicator of the gap between current and “ideal” health to support assessment of the global burden of disease (Murray & Lopez, 1996). The DALY approach is currently undergoing revision (see: http://globalburden.org/).
In cost-effectiveness analysis, valuation is implicit, because monetary thresholds are needed to compare with the cost-effectiveness ratio to determine whether the intervention is worth implementing.
The Tufts CEA Registry can be accessed at:https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear4/.
More information on these and other indices, including cross-index comparisons, is available on the National Health Measurement Study website: http://www.healthmeasurement.org/NHMS.html.
This article, and a calculator that allows users to retrieve EQ-5D scores by International Classification of Disease code and demographic characteristics, are available online: http://www.ohsu.edu/epc/mdm/webResources.cfm. The underlying scoring function used to calculate HRQL from the EQ-5D for the US population was developed by Shaw, Johnson, and Coons (2005).
While some analysts add COI estimates to QALY estimates, arguing that the later incorporates the value of averting pain and suffering, such an approach can lead to double-counting. For example, a QALY estimate that includes effects on usual activities may overlap with estimates of productivity losses.
This issue is distinct from the question of whether the outcome is a public or private good. In economics, public goods are nonexclusive (individuals cannot be prevented from consuming them) and nonrival (consumption by one does not reduce the amount available for others). However, public programs can provide private goods (e.g., health care consumed by the individual) as well as public goods (e.g., air pollution abatement that affects the community as a whole).
This issue is not the same as considering internalities and externalities. An externality is an outcome not reflected in market interactions, and is the traditional rationale for government intervention. However, government may intervene for other reasons; for example, to address the need for accurate information or to promote equity.
Adler and Posner (2006) refer to this as “laundering” preferences.