| Title |
Endogenous information, adverse selection, and prevention: Implications for genetic testing policy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Health Economics, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.06.010 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard Peter, Andreas Richter, Paul Thistle |
| Abstract |
We examine public policy toward the use of genetic information by insurers. Individuals engage in unobservable primary prevention and have access to different prevention technologies. Thus, insurance markets are affected by moral hazard and adverse selection. Individuals can choose to take a genetic test to acquire information about their prevention technology. Information has positive decision-making value, that is, individuals may adjust their behavior based on the result of the test. However, testing also exposes individuals to uncertainty over the available insurance contract, so-called classification risk, which lowers the value of information. In our analysis we distinguish between four different policy regimes, determine the value of information under each regime and associated equilibrium outcomes on the insurance market. We show that the policy regimes can be Pareto ranked, with a duty to disclose being the preferred regime and an information ban the least preferred one. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 24% |
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 13 | 31% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,938,137
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health Economics
#485
of 2,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,589
of 324,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health Economics
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.