Question A: Ohio's "Vax-a-Million" program is a cost-effective program for encouraging vaccination in the state.
Question A: Ohio's "Vax-a-Million" program is a cost-effective program for encouraging vaccination in the state.
Question A: Ohio's "Vax-a-Million" program is a cost-effective program for encouraging vaccination in the state.
Question A: Ohio's "Vax-a-Million" program is a cost-effective program for encouraging vaccination in the state.
| Economist | Institution | Opinion | Confidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Andreas | Bluffton University | Uncertain | 6 | Ex-ante I was hopeful about the creativity of the strategy, but in hindsight it doesn't look like it worked as well as I would have hoped. It was worth a try and now we know that the results turned out to be mediocre at best. I'd have to see a cost-benefit analysis to fully answer the question though. |
| Bizuayehu Bedane | Marietta College | Uncertain | 9 | |
| Kevin Egan | University of Toledo | Strongly Agree | 10 | We have already observed the vaccination rate increase substantially after the lottery was announced showing the program is effective; and also cost-effective as it is likely one of the cheapest ways to achieve such a large increase in the vaccination rate. For example, an equally expensive advertising-only campaign about benefits of vaccination would likely be less effective than this lottery program which resulted in much free publicity about it. |
| Hasan Faruq | Xavier University | Agree | 8 | |
| Robert Gitter | Ohio Wesleyan University | Agree | 7 | It probably did not do much good but did not cost that much. The uptick in vaccinations was primarily due to making the vaccine available to 12-15 year olds rather than Vax-a-Million. |
| Nancy Haskell | University of Dayton | Uncertain | 8 | |
| Paul Holmes | Ashland University | Uncertain | 4 | |
| Faria Huq | Lake Erie College | Agree | 8 | |
| Michael Jones | University of Cincinnati | Disagree | 7 | A recent JAMA research article finds no evidence that vax-a-million increased vaccination rates. So far, it's the only peer-reviewed article evaluating the program that I've seen. |
| Fadhel Kaboub | Denison University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | The State should have spent that money on a more serious campaign to educate the public about the health risks and the economic consequences associated with the choice to not get vaccinated. Vax-a-Million is a gambling technique that should be used by Casinos rather than State institutions. |
| Charles Kroncke | Mount Saint Joseph University | Disagree | 10 | |
| Trevon Logan | Ohio State University | Uncertain | 8 | |
| Michael Myler | University of Mount Union | Strongly Agree | 10 | Undertaking a cost/benefit analysis requires that you place a $-value on a "standard statistical" human life. I think different agencies of the federal government each come up with their own number, but it appears to be in the 7-10 million-dollar range for one "average" human. If we are each worth that much to the economy, vaccinating the entire population is a no-brainer. If you are truly afraid of getting vaccinated, the wisest thing to do is persuade everyone else to get vaccinated. |
| Joe Nowakowski | Muskingum University | Disagree | 8 | Most people realized they weren't going to become millionaires. Might have been more effective to offer a tax rebate to vaccinees. |
| Curtis Reynolds | Kent State University | Uncertain | 5 | I have no objection to the idea and it might work, but I have not yet seen high-quality research evaluating the effectiveness |
| Lewis Sage | Baldwin Wallace University | Agree | 7 | A better format would have made the monthly jackpot contingent on the number of new vaccinations. |
| Albert Sumell | Youngstown State University | Strongly Agree | 10 | The costs associated with even a few hundred non-vaccinated people contracting COVID would far exceed the costs of administering this program. If anything the state shot too low with a million. It should be VAX-A-BILLION next time. |
| Melissa Thomasson | Miami University | Strongly Agree | 10 | |
| Thomas Traynor | Wright State University | Uncertain | 6 | Higher quality analyses than those completed thus far are needed |
| Mark Votruba | Case Western Reserve University | Disagree | 8 | The evidence I've seen so far (recent NBER study out of BU) makes it look pretty ineffective. |
| Andy Welki | John Carroll University | Uncertain | 5 | Would probably depend upon whether the unvaccinated are normally lottery players. |
| Kathryn Wilson | Kent State University | Agree | 3 | There were positive design features of the program such as having it be multiple weeks and people become eligible for remaining drawings once they are vaccinated and sign up. In addition, the program provided a lot of "free advertising" about the vaccination as there were many news stories both at the local and national level. Presumably it also increased discussions about vaccinations among families and friends and these personal conversations may increase vaccination. It is not clear, though, how much it ultimately increased vaccination rates. |
| Rachel Wilson | Wittenberg University | Agree | 7 |