Abstract
This is a comment on the paper by Irz et al. (2015) in this journal, on nutritional recommendations. Irz et al. (2015) propose to compute the cost of a nutritional constraint as the consumer loss of surplus, derived from their observed choices. Introducing behavioral biases into an extended version of their model, I show that their proposed methodology implicitly assumes that consumer dietary choices do not involve any health considerations. The cost per quality-adjusted life year that they compute should be corrected by the size of the bias of consumers to be compared with benchmark evaluations.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 43-47 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Journal of Health Economics |
| Volume | 65 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 1 May 2019 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
Keywords
- Biases
- Nutrition
- Public policy
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Economic assessment of nutritional recommendations: A comment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver