Earlier today, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that the Bridgeport, Connecticut and Dayton, Ohio public housing authorities would receive $1.1 million in grants to help reduce radon exposure in homes. Radon is a radioactive gas that can be found in the soil underneath homes, and can increase the risk of cancer for people exposed to it.
These funds will allow the two housing authorities to test public housing units for radon exposure, and if detected enable them to mitigate the negative effects. The press release claims that they expect this to protect 1,700 low-income families from radon exposure.
From an efficiency lens, we should probably expect this to have a net positive effect on society. $1.1 million is a small price to pay for something that could potentially prevent people from getting cancer.
Doing some back of the envelope math, if we use a Value of Statistical Life of $11 million, then this would need to reduce the risk of death for individuals in the impacted families by only 0.00003% to break even. That assumes that there are roughly 2.5 people per affected family.
Given how likely this is to return a positive value for society, it could be beneficial for more local governments to pursue similar programs. A more expansive strategy could amplify the benefits by ensuring that low-income families in other cities also have access to testing and mitigation services.
From an equity perspective, this proposal should have a positive impact. It is a bit more difficult to know for certain though, because low-income families do not necessarily have higher exposure to radon than higher-income families. Instead, we might expect an increase in equity to result from the fact that low-income families have fewer resources to dedicate to treatment in the long run, should the exposure result in negative health outcomes.
While this funding announcement is a positive development, some key details could help better assess the policy’s potential impact. Clarity on how the $1.1 million will be distributed between testing and mitigation is essential. If most of the funds are used for testing, there might be insufficient resources to effectively mitigate radon in all affected homes. A more detailed breakdown would provide confidence that the program will successfully reduce radon exposure and protect families.
The timeline for the rollout and completion of the program is another missing piece of information. Knowing when testing and mitigation efforts will begin and end would allow communities to better understand when they will see improvements. Establishing clear benchmarks and deadlines could also help in evaluating the program’s effectiveness.
Finally, details on how the success of this initiative will be measured are crucial. Plans for follow-up testing and long-term monitoring would ensure that initial mitigation efforts are sustained and effective. A well-defined evaluation strategy would not only strengthen the current program but also provide valuable data for expanding such efforts to other regions in the future.
Public policy that finds cost effective ways to improve public health are always good. Though more research would be needed to fully understand what the impacts of this proposal might be, this is a positive step toward protecting public health for low-income families.