Cargando…
Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19
In evaluating the appropriate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a key parameter is the rate of substitution between wealth and mortality risk, conventionally summarized as the value per statistical life (VSL). For the United States, VSL is estimated as approximately $10 million, which implies the v...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7656098/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33199940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09338-1 |
_version_ | 1783608311615062016 |
---|---|
author | Hammitt, James K. |
author_facet | Hammitt, James K. |
author_sort | Hammitt, James K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | In evaluating the appropriate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a key parameter is the rate of substitution between wealth and mortality risk, conventionally summarized as the value per statistical life (VSL). For the United States, VSL is estimated as approximately $10 million, which implies the value of preventing 100,000 COVID-19 deaths is $1 trillion. Is this value too large? There are reasons to think so. First, VSL is a marginal rate of substitution and the potential risk reductions are non-marginal. The standard VSL model implies the rate of substitution of wealth for risk reduction is smaller when the risk reduction is larger, but a closed-form solution calibrated to estimates of the income elasticity of VSL shows the rate of decline is modest until the value of a non-marginal risk reduction accounts for a substantial share of income; average individuals are predicted to be willing to spend more than half their income to reduce one-year mortality risk by 1 in 100. Second, mortality risk is concentrated among the elderly, for whom VSL may be smaller and who would benefit from a persistent risk reduction for a shorter period because of their shorter life expectancy. Third, the pandemic and responses to it have caused substantial losses in income that should decrease VSL. In contrast, VSL is plausibly larger for risks (like COVID-19) that are dreaded, uncertain, catastrophic, and ambiguous. These arguments are evaluated and key issues for improving estimates are highlighted. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7656098 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76560982020-11-12 Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19 Hammitt, James K. J Risk Uncertain Article In evaluating the appropriate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a key parameter is the rate of substitution between wealth and mortality risk, conventionally summarized as the value per statistical life (VSL). For the United States, VSL is estimated as approximately $10 million, which implies the value of preventing 100,000 COVID-19 deaths is $1 trillion. Is this value too large? There are reasons to think so. First, VSL is a marginal rate of substitution and the potential risk reductions are non-marginal. The standard VSL model implies the rate of substitution of wealth for risk reduction is smaller when the risk reduction is larger, but a closed-form solution calibrated to estimates of the income elasticity of VSL shows the rate of decline is modest until the value of a non-marginal risk reduction accounts for a substantial share of income; average individuals are predicted to be willing to spend more than half their income to reduce one-year mortality risk by 1 in 100. Second, mortality risk is concentrated among the elderly, for whom VSL may be smaller and who would benefit from a persistent risk reduction for a shorter period because of their shorter life expectancy. Third, the pandemic and responses to it have caused substantial losses in income that should decrease VSL. In contrast, VSL is plausibly larger for risks (like COVID-19) that are dreaded, uncertain, catastrophic, and ambiguous. These arguments are evaluated and key issues for improving estimates are highlighted. Springer US 2020-11-11 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7656098/ /pubmed/33199940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09338-1 Text en © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic. |
spellingShingle | Article Hammitt, James K. Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19 |
title | Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19 |
title_full | Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19 |
title_fullStr | Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19 |
title_full_unstemmed | Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19 |
title_short | Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19 |
title_sort | valuing mortality risk in the time of covid-19 |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7656098/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33199940 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09338-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hammittjamesk valuingmortalityriskinthetimeofcovid19 |