Asymmetric Paternalism to Improve Health Behaviors

COMMENTARY

Asymmetric Paternalism to Improve Health Behaviors
George Loewenstein, PhD Troyen Brennan, MD, JD, MPH Kevin G. Volpp, MD, PhD

ease burden faced by society. Many major health problems in the United States and other developed nations, such as lung cancer, hypertension, and diabetes, are exacerbated by unhealthy behaviors. Modifiable behaviors such as tobacco use, overeating, and alcohol abuse account for nearly one-third of all deaths in the United States.1,2 Moreover, realizing the potential benefit of some of the most promising advances in medicine, such as medications to control blood pressure, lower cholesterol levels, and prevent stroke, has been stymied by poor adherence rates among patients.3 For example, by 1 year after having a myocardial infarction, nearly half of patients prescribed cholesterol-lowering medications have stopped taking them.4 Reducing morbidity and mortality may depend as much on motivating changes in behavior as on developing new treatments.5 Economics, as the social science discipline traditionally most closely tied to public policy, could be a key discipline in addressing behaviors that are potentially harmful to health. Yet conventional economics does not provide satisfactory policy solutions to problems caused by self-harmful behavior. Economics is premised on a rational choice perspective which, by assuming that individuals make optimal decisions given their information, resources, and preferences, in effect assumes away these problems. The main policy tools suggested by conventional economics, providing information or changing prices, only partially address these problems because they fail to exploit what is known about human motivation and behavior change. Responding in part to these limitations of conventional economics, the new field of behavioral economics has, over the last few decades, begun to import concepts from psychology.6 Behavioral economists have identified a number of decision biases and pitfalls in

References: 1. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000 [published correction appears in JAMA. 2005;293(3):298]. JAMA. 2004;291(10):1238-1245. 2. Flegal KM, Graubard BI, Williamson DF, Gail MH. Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity. JAMA. 2005;293(15):1861-1867. 3. Kripalani S, Yao X, Haynes RB. Interventions to enhance medication adherence in chronic medical conditions: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167(6):540-549. 4. Jackevicius CA, Mamdani M, Tu JV. Adherence with statin therapy in elderly patients with and without acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2002;288(4):462467. 5. Schroeder SA. We can do better—improving the health of the American people. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(12):1221-1228. 6. Camerer C, Loewenstein G. Behavioral economics: past, present, future. In: Camerer C, Loewenstein G, Rabin M, eds. Advances in Behavioral Economics. New York, NY and Princeton, NJ: Russell Sage Foundation Press and Princeton University Press; 2003. 7. Johnson EJ, Hershey J, Meszaros J, Kunreuther H. Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. J Risk Uncertainty. 1993;7:35-53. 8. Madrian BC, Shea DF. The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Q J Econ. 2001;116(4):1149-1187. 9. O’Donoghue T, Rabin M. Doing it now or later. Am Econ Rev. 1999;89(1): 103-124. 10. Weber BJ, Chapman GB. Playing for peanuts: why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2005;97:3146. 11. Camerer C, Issacharoff S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T, Rabin M. Regulation for conservatives: behavioral economics and the case for “asymmetric paternalism.” Univ PA Law Rev. 2003;151(3):1211-1254. 12. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Libertarian paternalism. Am Econ Rev. 2003;93 (2):175-179. 13. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD. Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Intertemporal Choice. Willpower, choice, and self-control. In: Lowenstein G, Read D, Baumeister RF, eds. New York, New York:Russell Sage Foundation Press;2003. 14. Martin A. The school cafeteria, on a diet. New York Times. September 5, 2007. 15. Thaler RH, Benartzi S. Save more tomorrow: using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. J Political Economy. 2004;112(1):S164-S187. 16. Warner KE, Smith RJ, Smith DG, Fries BE. Health and economic implications of a work-site smoking-cessation program: a simulation analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 1996;38(10):981-992. 17. Higgins ST, Wong CJ, Badger GJ, Ogden DE, Dantona RL. Contingent reinforcement increases cocaine abstinence during outpatient treatment and 1 year of follow-up. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000;68(1):64-72. 18. Volpp KG, Gurmankin Levy A, Asch DA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of financial incentives for smoking cessation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(1):12-18. ©2007 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. (Reprinted) JAMA, November 28, 2007—Vol 298, No. 20 2417 Downloaded from www.jama.com on November 27, 2007