Nanny state or good public policy: Do the benefits of mandatory health programs justify the loss of consumer choice?

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Governments are increasingly turning to mandatory programs to improve health. Such programs are appealing because there are high health benefits from universal participation and low costs for promotion and monitoring the program. However, this apparent benefit relies on restriction of personal choice, which may impose welfare losses on consumers. Evaluations generally ignore loss of choice, despite evidence suggesting consumers value the ability to choose. This study will estimate the impact and value this loss of consumer choice, explore program specific factors and consumer characteristics influencing the valuation, and determine whether and how restricted choice should be explicitly considered when evaluating public health programs.