Asymmetric Paternalism to Improve Health Behaviors
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMMENTARY Asymmetric Paternalism to Improve Health Behaviors George Loewenstein, PhD nicians and public health professionals for years. In this Commentary, we identify some key decision biases that or- Troyen Brennan, MD, JD, MPH dinarily lead to self-harming behavior and show how they Kevin G. Volpp, MD, PhD can be exploited in interventions to instead promote healthy behaviors. NDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR PLAYS A CENTRAL ROLE IN THE DIS- ease burden faced by society. Many major health prob- Concepts of Behavioral Economics lems in the United States and other developed nations, Behavioral economics has identified several patterns of be- such as lung cancer, hypertension, and diabetes, are ex- havior that characterize the way individuals make deci- Iacerbated by unhealthy behaviors. Modifiable behaviors such sions. For example, individuals are highly prone to keep- as tobacco use, overeating, and alcohol abuse account for ing with customary (status quo) or default options even when nearly one-third of all deaths in the United States.1,2 More- superior alternatives are available, known as the status quo over, realizing the potential benefit of some of the most prom- or default bias. For example, in New Jersey, the default on ising advances in medicine, such as medications to control automobile insurance conferred a limited right to sue (with blood pressure, lower cholesterol levels, and prevent stroke, an option to pay extra to acquire a full right to sue), but only has been stymied by poor adherence rates among patients.3 20% of drivers chose to acquire this right. In contrast, in For example, by 1 year after having a myocardial infarction, Pennsylvania, where the default was a full right to sue (with nearly half of patients prescribed cholesterol-lowering medi- a discount if drivers switched to a limited right to sue), ap- cations have stopped taking them.4 Reducing morbidity and proximately 75% of drivers opted to retain the full right to mortality may depend as much on motivating changes in be- sue.7 Likewise, employees save more when their employer havior as on developing new treatments.5 automatically deposits a significant share of salary into a re- Economics, as the social science discipline traditionally tirement plan than if the default is no contribution.8 most closely tied to public policy, could be a key discipline Individuals place disproportionate weight on present rela- in addressing behaviors that are potentially harmful to health. tive to future costs and benefits, known as present-biased Yet conventional economics does not provide satisfactory preferences.9 This explains why many behavioral patterns policy solutions to problems caused by self-harmful behav- that undermine health involve immediate benefits (such as ior. Economics is premised on a rational choice perspec- eating) coupled with delayed costs (such as obesity), or im- tive which, by assuming that individuals make optimal de- mediate costs (such as the inconvenience of taking a drug cisions given their information, resources, and preferences, or undergoing a preventive medical procedure) coupled with in effect assumes away these problems. The main policy tools delayed, and often uncertain, benefits. Caring less about the suggested by conventional economics, providing informa- future than the present can be rational, but most individu- tion or changing prices, only partially address these prob- als place much greater weight on the present than would lems because they fail to exploit what is known about hu- follow from a consistent tendency to discount the future. man motivation and behavior change. Most individuals are motivated by actions that produce Responding in part to these limitations of conventional measurable, tangible benefits but are much less motivated economics, the new field of behavioral economics has, over by actions that do not produce tangible progress toward a the last few decades, begun to import concepts from psy- goal.10 For many behaviors that undermine health, factors chology.6 Behavioral economists have identified a number of decision biases and pitfalls in decision making that can Author Affiliations: Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mel- lon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Dr Loewenstein); Aetna Inc, Hartford, help explain when and why individuals engage in self- Connecticut (Dr Brennan); Center for Health Equity Research & Promotion, Phila- harming behaviors that contribute to poor health out- delphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Department of Health Care Systems, the Whar- comes. ton School, University of Pennsylvania, and Leonard Davis Institute of Health Eco- Insights from behavioral economics can contribute to so- nomics, Philadelphia (Dr Volpp). Corresponding Author: George Loewenstein, PhD, Department of Social and De- lutions for public health problems such as medication non- cision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 (gl20 adherence and sedentary lifestyles that have challenged cli- @andrew.cmu.edu). ©2007 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. (Reprinted) JAMA, November 28, 2007—Vol 298, No. 20 2415 Downloaded from www.jama.com on November 27, 2007 COMMENTARY working against adherence, such as time costs, are tan- proach that is at best partially effective, many specific in- gible, whereas benefits such as reduced long-term risk of terventions proposed by advocates of asymmetric paternal- an adverse outcome are intangible and often delayed. Thus, ism use a common strategy: they exploit the same biases that losing weight is difficult because any single indulgence has ordinarily contribute to self-harmful behavior instead to pro- no discernible effect on weight. The lack of motivation for mote healthy behavior. actions with intangible benefits also helps explain poor For instance, there are many ways in which the default adherence to treatments for disorders such as hyperten- or status quo alternative is often the unhealthy one. At fast sion and hyperlipidemia, which show no tangible manifes- food restaurants, for example, combination meals typically tation (ie, are usually asymptomatic) for patients. include large sodas, which become even larger if the meal Although necessarily only a partial list of documented de- is “supersized.” Replacing the soft drink with a bottle of cision errors, these phenomena help explain the lack of suc- water as the default, with soda served only on request, cess of interventions that attempt to change behavior by sim- would cost restaurants little and preserve freedom of ply informing patients about the risks of poor behavior or choice while potentially producing a major change in bev- attempting to convince them of the long-term benefits of erage consumption behavior. Defaults could also be used good behavior. According to status quo and default biases, to advantage when it comes to beneficial medical tests. For even if patients know the best course of action, they are likely many types of medical tests, the default is to not get the to adhere to the path of least resistance, doing what is au- test. Patients and clinicians are responsible for remember- tomatic or what they have done in the past. Because of ing, for example, that a patient has not had a colonoscopy present-biased preferences and intangibility, informing pa- for 5 years and is due to get one. An asymmetrically pater- tients about delayed consequences of their behavior is un- nalistic policy would change the default such that the next likely to have much effect because the costs of adhering to test is automatically scheduled (with provision made for recommendations are often immediate and thus heavily reminders), eg, when the patient undergoes the current weighted, whereas the benefits are often remote in time (and test, the next test would need to be unscheduled to be hence drastically discounted) and amorphous because any avoided. Another possible policy would establish obtaining single self-harming action has little if any noticeable effect. a second opinion for certain types of medical procedures In short, contrary to the rational choice perspective that as the default, which could only be overridden by making individuals will behave in a self-interested fashion if given an explicit decision, with an appropriate rationale, for not accurate information, a wide range of decision biases con- doing so. tribute to unhealthy behaviors. Present-biased preferences can also be exploited to help individuals rather than harm them by altering immediate Using Behavioral Economics to Change Behavior costs and benefits. The key, again consistent with chang- Behavioral economists have proposed an approach to pub- ing the path of least resistance, is to make healthy behav- lic policy, termed asymmetric paternalism.11,12 Asymmetric iors more convenient (less immediately costly) and un- paternalism is paternalistic in the sense of attempting to healthy behaviors less convenient (more immediately costly). help individuals achieve their own goals—in effect protect- For example, companies could offer free chilled bottles of ing them from themselves, as compared with conventional water within easy access of employees or students, while soft forms of regulation designed to prevent individuals from drinks could be sold in less convenient locations farther away harming others. from employee work stations or offices. Positioning the soft Asymmetric paternalism is asymmetric in the sense of drink vending