Abstract
We develop a theoretical analysis of two widely used regulations of genetic tests, Disclosure Duty and Consent Law, and we run an experiment in order to shed light on both the take-up rate of genetic testing and on the comparison of policyholders’ welfare under the two regulations. Disclosure duty forces individuals to reveal their test results to insurers, exposing them to a discrimination risk. Consent Law allows them to hide any detrimental information, resulting in adverse selection. The experiment results in much lower genetic tests take-up rates with Disclosure Duty than with Consent Law, showing that subjects are very sensitive to the discrimination risk. Under Consent Law, take-up rates increase with the adverse selection intensity. A decrease in the test cost, and in adverse selection intensity, both make it more likely that Consent Law is preferred to Disclosure Duty.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Article number | 102223 |
| Journal | Journal of Health Economics |
| Volume | 68 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 2019 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Health Policy
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'How is the trade-off between adverse selection and discrimination risk affected by genetic testing? Theory and experiment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver