IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v127y2016icp59-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The subjective value of a life with Down syndrome: Evidence from amniocentesis decision

Author

Listed:
  • Gajdos, Thibault
  • Garrouste, Clémentine
  • Geoffard, Pierre-Yves

Abstract

Using a simple theoretical decision model and an original database, we were able to elicit the distribution of the utility value of having a child with Down syndrome for a large sample of French pregnant women (n = 28,341) between 2003 and 2007. We found that, on a scale where the value of a fetal death is 0 and the value of a healthy child is 1, the mean value for a child with Down syndrome is about −0.6. Assuming that the policymaker used the same decision model as the women, we infer from the French amniocentesis reimbursement regulation an implicit social value for a child with Down syndrome of −2.5. We conclude from our study that the policymaker is more likely to prevent the birth of children with Down syndrome than French women themselves.

Suggested Citation

  • Gajdos, Thibault & Garrouste, Clémentine & Geoffard, Pierre-Yves, 2016. "The subjective value of a life with Down syndrome: Evidence from amniocentesis decision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 59-69.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:127:y:2016:i:c:p:59-69
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2016.04.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268116300543
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.04.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eduardo Fajnzylber & Seth Sanders & V. Joseph Hotz, 2010. "An Economic Model of Amniocentesis Choice," Working Papers 10-66, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    2. Edi Karni & Moshe Leshno & Sivan Rapaport, 2014. "Helping patients and physicians reach individualized medical decisions: theory and application to prenatal diagnostic testing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 451-467, April.
    3. Clémentine Garrouste & Jérôme Le & Eric Maurin, 2011. "The choice of detecting Down syndrome: does money matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(9), pages 1073-1089, September.
    4. Karine Lamiraud & Pierre‐Yves Geoffard, 2007. "Therapeutic non‐adherence: a rational behavior revealing patient preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1185-1204, November.
    5. Browner, C.H. & Preloran, H.M. & Cox, S.J., 1999. "Ethnicity, bioethics, and prenatal diagnosis: The amniocentesis decisions of Mexican-origin women and their partners," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 89(11), pages 1658-1666.
    6. repec:dau:papers:123456789/12124 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Valerie Seror, 2008. "Fitting observed and theoretical choices – women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 557-577, May.
    8. Karine Lamiraud & Pierre-Yves Geoffard, 2007. "Therapeutic non-adherence: a rational behavior revealing patient preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1185-1204.
    9. Edi Karni, 2009. "A theory of medical decision making under uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 1-16, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Di Giacomo, Marina & Piacenza, Massimiliano & Siciliani, Luigi & Turati, Gilberto, 2022. "The effect of co-payments on the take-up of prenatal tests," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Di Giacomo, Marina & Piacenza, Massimiliano & Siciliani, Luigi & Turati, Gilberto, 2022. "The effect of co-payments on the take-up of prenatal tests," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/12124 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mealem, Yosef & Siniver, Erez & Yaniv, Gideon, 2012. "Patient compliance, physician empathy and financial incentives within a principal-agent framework," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 827-830.
    4. Clémentine Garrouste & Jérôme Le & Eric Maurin, 2011. "The choice of detecting Down syndrome: does money matter?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(9), pages 1073-1089, September.
    5. Domenico Depalo, 2020. "Explaining the causal effect of adherence to medication on cholesterol through the marginal patient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(S1), pages 110-126, October.
    6. Klaus Mann & Michael Möcker & Joachim Grosser, 2019. "Adherence to long-term prophylactic treatment: microeconomic analysis of patients’ behavior and the impact of financial incentives," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. O'Callaghan, Patrick, 2016. "Measuring utility without mixing apples and oranges and eliciting beliefs about stock prices," MPRA Paper 69363, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Azam, Nouman & Zhang, Yan & Yao, JingTao, 2017. "Evaluation functions and decision conditions of three-way decisions with game-theoretic rough sets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(2), pages 704-714.
    9. David Dillenberger & Andrew Postlewaite & Kareen Rozen, 2013. "Optimism and Pessimism with Expected Utility, Fifth Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 15-009, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 23 Feb 2015.
    10. David Dillenberger & Andrew Postlewaite & Kareen Rozen, 2017. "Optimism and Pessimism with Expected Utility," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(5), pages 1158-1175.
    11. Pamela Giustinelli, 2016. "Group Decision Making With Uncertain Outcomes: Unpacking Child–Parent Choice Of The High School Track," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(2), pages 573-602, May.
    12. David Dillenberger & Andrew Postlewaite & Kareen Rozen, 2011. "Optimism and Pessimism with Expected Utility, Fourth Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 13-068, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Nov 2013.
    13. Thomas Garcia & Sébastien Massoni, 2017. "Aiming to choose correctly or to choose wisely ? The optimality-accuracy trade-off in decisions under uncertainty," Working Papers 1714, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    14. Stéphane Lhuillery, 2009. "In search of lost disincentive effect from intra-industry spillovers," CEMI Working Papers cemi-workingpaper-2009-00, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Collège du Management de la Technologie, Management of Technology and Entrepreneurship Institute, Chaire en Economie et Management de l'Innovation.
    15. Price, Joseph & Price, Joshua & Simon, Kosali, 2011. "Educational gaps in medical care and health behavior: Evidence from US Natality data," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 838-849, October.
    16. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    17. Wild, Kayli & Maypilama, Elaine Lawurrpa & Kildea, Sue & Boyle, Jacqueline & Barclay, Lesley & Rumbold, Alice, 2013. "‘Give us the full story’: Overcoming the challenges to achieving informed choice about fetal anomaly screening in Australian Aboriginal communities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 351-360.
    18. Ingrid Burfurd & Tom Wilkening, 2018. "Experimental guidance for eliciting beliefs with the Stochastic Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(1), pages 15-28, July.
    19. O’Callaghan, Patrick H., 2018. "Axioms for measuring utility on partial mixture sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 76-86.
    20. Sergei Koulayev & Emilia Simeonova & Niels Skipper, 2017. "Can Physicians Affect Patient Adherence With Medication?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 779-794, June.
    21. O’Callaghan, Patrick, 2011. "Context and Decision: Utility on a Union of Mixture Spaces," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 973, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:127:y:2016:i:c:p:59-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.