The ‘Red Herring’ Hypothesis: Some Theory and New Evidence

Abstract

The ‘red herring’ hypothesis (RHH) claims that apart from income and medical technology, proximity to death rather than age constitutes the main determinant of healthcare expenditure (HCE). This paper seeks to underpin the RHH with some theory to derive new predictions also for a rationed setting, and to test them against published empirical evidence. One set comprising ten predictions uses women’s longer life expectancy as an indicator of the difference in time to death in their favor. Out of 28 testing opportunities drawn from the published evidence, in the case of no rationing seven out of eleven result in full and two in partial confirmation; in the case of rationing, twelve out of 17 result in full and one in partial confirmation. The other set, containing 35 testing opportunities, concerns the age profile of HCE. In the case of no rationing, seven out of twelve result in full and four in partial confirmation; in the case of rationing, eleven out of 23 in full and nine in partial confirmation. There are but ten contradictions in total. Overall, the new tests of the RHH can be said to receive a good deal of empirical support, both from countries and settings with and without rationing.