On the Concept of Health Capital

and the Demand for Health

Michael Grossman
National Bureau of Economic Research

The aim of this study is to construct a model of the demand for the
commodity "good health." The central proposition of the model is that
health can be viewed as a durable capital stock that produces an output
of healthy time. It is assumed that individuals inherit an initial stock
of health that depreciates with age and can be increased by investment.
In this framework, the "shadow price" of health depends on many other
variables besides the price of medical care. It is shown that the shadow
price rises with age if the rate of depreciation on the stock of health
rises over the life cycle and falls with education if more educated people
are more efficient producers of health. Of particular importance is the
conclusion that, under certain conditions, an increase in the shadow
price may simultaneously reduce the quantity of health demanded and
increase the quantity of medical care demanded.

I. Introduction
During the past two decades, the notion that individuals invest in them-
selves has become widely accepted in economics. At a conceptual level,
increases in a person's stock of knowledge or human capital are assumed
to raise his productivity in the market sector of the economy, where he
produces money earnings, and in the nonmarket or household sector,
where he produces commodities that enter his utility function. To realize

This paper is based on part of my Columbia University Ph.D. dissertation, "The

Demand for Health: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation," which will be pub-
lished by the National Bureau of Economic Research. My research at the Bureau was
supported by the Commonwealth Fund and the National Center for Health Services
Research and Development (PHS research grant 2 P 01 HS 00451-04). Most of this
paper was written while I was at the University of Chicago's Center for Health Ad-
ministration Studies, with research support from the National Center for Health Ser-
vices Research and Development (PHS grant HS 00080). A preliminary version of this
paper was presented at the Second World Congress of the Econometric Society. I am
grateful to Gary S. Becker, V. K. Chetty, Victor R. Fuchs, Gilbert R. Ghez, Robert T.
Michael, and Jacob Mincer for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.

223
224 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

potential gains in productivity, individuals have an incentive to invest

in formal schooling or in on-the-job training. The costs of these invest-
ments include direct outlays on market goods and the opportunity cost
of the time that must be withdrawn from competing uses. This frame-
work has been used by Becker (1967) and by Ben-Porath (1967) to
develop models that determine the optimal quantity of investment in
human capital at any age. In addition, these models show how the
optimal quantity varies over the life cycle of an individual and among
individuals of the same age.
Although several writers have suggested that health can be viewed as
one form of human capital (Mushkin 1962, pp. 129-49; Becker 1964,
pp. 33-36; Fuchs 1966, pp. 90-91), no one has constructed a model of the
demand for health capital itself. If increases in the stock of health simply
increased wage rates, such a task would not be necessary, for one could
simply apply Becker's and Ben-Porath's models to study the decision to
invest in health. This paper argues, however, that health capital differs
from other forms of human capital. In particular, it argues that a person's
stock of knowledge affects his market and nonmarket productivity, while
his stock of health determines the total amount of time he can spend
producing money earnings and commodities. The fundamental difference
between the two types of capital is the basic justification for the model
of the demand for health that is presented in the paper.
A second justification for the model is that most students of medical
economics have long realized that what consumers demand when they
purchase medical services are not these services per se but, rather, "good
health." Given that the basic demand is for good health, it seems logical
to study the demand for medical care by first constructing a model of
the demand for health itself. Since, however, traditional demand theory
assumes that goods and services purchased in the market enter consumers'
utility functions, economists have emphasized the demand for medical
care at the expense of the demand for health. Fortunately, a new approach
to consumer behavior draws a sharp distinction between fundamental ob-
jects of choice-called "commodities"-and market goods (Becker 1965;
Lancaster 1966; Muth 1966; Michael 1969; Becker and Michael 1970;
Ghez 1970). Thus, it serves as the point of departure for my health
model. In this approach, consumers produce commodities with inputs of
market goods and their own time. For example, they use traveling time
and transportation services to produce visits; part of their Sundays and
church services to produce "peace of mind"; and their own time, books,
and teachers' services to produce additions to knowledge. Since goods and
services are inputs into the production of commodities, the demand for
these goods and services is a derived demand.
Within the new framework for examining consumer behavior, it is
assumed that individuals inherit an initial stock of health that depreciates
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 225

over time-at an increasing rate, at least after some stage in the life
cycle-and can be increased by investment. Death occurs when the stock
falls below a certain level, and one of the novel features of the model
is that individuals "choose" their length of life. Gross investments in
health capital are produced by household production functions whose
direct inputs include the own time of the consumer and market goods
such as medical care, diet, exercise, recreation, and housing. The produc-
tion function also depends on certain "environmental variables," the
most important of which is the level of education of the producer, that
influence the efficiency of the production process.
It should be realized that in this model the level of health of an indi-
vidual is not exogenous but depends, at least in part, on the resources
allocated to its production. Health is demanded by consumers for two
reasons. As a consumption commodity, it directly enters their preference
functions, or, put differently, sick days are a source of disutility. As an
investment commodity, it determines the total amount of time available
for market and nonmarket activities. In other words, an increase in the
stock of health reduces the time lost from these activities, and the mone-
tary value of this reduction is an index of the return to an investment
in health.
Since the most fundamental law in economics is the law of the down-
ward-sloping demand curve, the quantity of health demanded should be
negatively correlated with its shadow price. The analysis in this paper
stresses that the shadow price of health depends on many other variables
besides the price of medical care. Shifts in these variables alter the
optimal amount of health and also alter the derived demand for gross
investment, measured, say, by medical expenditures. It is shown that the
shadow price rises with age if the rate of depreciation on the stock of
health rises over the life cycle and falls with education if more educated
people are more efficient producers of health. Of particular importance is
the conclusion that, under certain conditions, an increase in the shadow
price may simultaneously reduce the quantity of health demanded and
increase the quantity of medical care demanded.

11. A Stock Approach to the Demand for Health

A. The Model
Let the intertemporal utility function of a typical consumer be
U =: U(fOH02 . .. i Z4 * * *
<OnHni Zn) 2 (1)

where Ho is the inherited stock of health, Hi is the stock of health in the

ith time period, 4i is the service flow per unit stock, hi -= qIH is total
consumption of "health services," and Zi is total consumption of another
226 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

commodity in the ith period.1 Note that, whereas in the usual inter-
temporal utility function n, the length of life as of the planning date, is
fixed, here it is an endogenous variable. In particular, death takes place
when Hi = Hmin.Therefore, length of life depends on the quantities of
Hi that maximize utility subject to certain production and resource con-
straints that are now outlined.
By definition, net investment in the stock of health equals gross invest-
ment minus depreciation:
Hi+, - Hi = It - biHiy (2)
where Ii is gross investment and hi is the rate of depreciation during the
ith period. The rates of depreciation are assumed to be exogenous, but
they may vary with the age of the individual. Consumers produce gross
investments in health and the other commodities in the utility function
according to a set of household production functions:
Ii = Ii(Mil THi; Ei), (3 )
Zi - Zi(Xi, Ti; Ei).
In these equations, Mi is medical care, Xi is the goods input in the pro-
duction of the commodity Zi, THi and Ti are time inputs, and Ei is the
stock of human capital.3 It is assumed that a shift in human capital
changes the efficiency of the production process in the nonmarket sector
of the economy, just as a shift in technology changes the efficiency of the
production process in the market sector. The implications of this treat-
ment of human capital are explored in Section IV.
It is also assumed that all production functions are homogeneous of
degree 1 in the goods and time inputs. Therefore, the gross investment
production function can be written as
Ii =Mig(ti; Ei), (4)
where ti -
THilMi. It follows that the marginal products of time and
medical care in the production of gross investment in health are

1 The commodity
Zi may be viewed as an aggregate of all commodities besides health
that enter the utility function in period i. For the convenience of the reader, a glossary
of symbols may be found in Appendix B.
2 In a more complicated version of the model, the rate of depreciation
might be a
negative function of the stock of health. The analysis is considerably simplified by
treating this rate as exogenous, and the conclusions reached would tend to hold even
if it were endogenous.
3 In general, medical care is not the only market good in the gross investment func-
tion, for inputs such as housing, diet, recreation, cigarette smoking, and alcohol con-
sumption influence one's level of health. Since these inputs also produce other
commodities in the utility function, joint production occurs in the household. For an
analysis of this phenomenon, see Grossman (1970, chap. 6). To emphasize the key
aspects of my health model, I treat medical care as the most important market good
in the gross investment function in the present paper.
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 227

dI, ag
aTH1 At '

-
aMi =g i(5)
From the point of view of the individual, both market goods and own
time are scarce resources.The goods budget constraint equates the present
value of outlays on goods to the present value of earnings income over
the life cycle plus initial assets (discounted property income) :4
zP*M- + Vixi E WiT>
+ Ao. (6)

Here Pi and Vi are the prices of Mi and Xi, Wi is the wage rate, TWi is
hours of work, AOis discounted property income, and r is the interest rate.
The time constraint requires that Q, the total amount of time available
in any period, must be exhausted by all possible uses:
TWi+TLI+TH,+T= Q. (7)
where TLI is time lost from market and nonmarket activities due to illness
or injury.
Equation (7) modifies the time budget constraint in Becker's time
model (Becker 1965). If sick time were not added to market and non-
market time, total time would not be exhausted by all possible uses. My
model assumes that TLj is inversely related to the stock of health; that is,
DTLilaHl < 0. If Q were measured in days (Q 365 days if the year
-

is the relevant period) and if pi were defined as the flow of healthy days
per unit of Hi, hi would equal the total number of healthy days in a
given year.5 Then one could write
TL= Q- hi. (8)
It is important to draw a sharp distinction between sick time and the
time input in the gross investment function. As an illustration of this
difference,the time a consumer allocates to visiting his doctor for periodic
checkups is obviously not sick time. More formally, if the rate of de-
preciation were held constant, an increase in THi would increase Ii and
Xi+1 and would reduce TLi+1. Thus, TJJi and TL1+1would be negatively
correlated

4 The sums throughout this study are taken from i - 0 to n.

5 If the stock of health yielded other services besides healthy days, 0i would be a
vector of service flows. This study emphasizes the service flow of healthy days because
this flow can be measured empirically.
6 For a discussion of conditions that would produce a positive correlation between
TH, and TLja,, see Section III.
2 28 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

By substituting for TWi from equation (7) into equation (6), one
obtains the single "full wealth" constraint:
PiM1+ ViX1+ Wi(TLi + THi + T1) WiQ
(1+r)i (1+r)i
(9)
According to equation (9), full wealth equals initial assets plus the present
value of the earnings an individual would obtain if he spent all of his time
at work. Part of this wealth is spent on market goods, part of it is spent
on nonmarket production time, and part of it is lost due to illness. The
equilibrium quantities of Hi and Za can now be found by maximizing the
utility function given by equation (1) subject to the constraints given by
equations (2), (3), and (9).7 Since the inherited stock of health and the
rates of depreciation are given, the optimal quantities of gross investment
determine the optimal quantities of health capital.

B. Equilibrium Conditions
First-order optimality conditions for gross investment in period i - 1
are:8

&-1 ~WiGi (I - i)Wi+l Gi+1

+ (1+ r)( r)++ +

(1 bi) *. (1 - n-)WnGn
+(1+r)n

Uk. Ukn
+ xtGo i + (1 - 8) . .. (1 bail-) G.; (10)

Pi- i Wi- 1I

g t4_1 g gI

The new symbols in these equations are: Uhi -D U/ki - the marginal
utility of healthy days; X = the marginal utility of wealth; Gi Dhi/
DHi - (DTLi/DHi) the marginal product of the stock of health in
the production of healthy days; and zi3t the marginal cost of gross
investment in health in period i - 1.

In addition, the constraint is imposed that Hn ?Hniin

7
8
Note that an increase in gross investment in period i - 1 increases the stock of
health in all future periods. These increases are equal to
OH1 OHi+1 OHn
aldi 1v al tion (10 se P A. 2
al tA
- (I1 - hi.) ( 1 8iti) .. ** 1-

.For a derivation of equation (10), see Part A of the Mathematical Appendix.

CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 229

Equation (10) simply states that the present value of the marginal
cost of gross investment in period i - 1 must equal the present value of
marginal benefits. Discounted marginal benefits at age i equal
r Wi Uh* l
2
L(I+r)i+ X

where Gi is the marginal product of health capital-the increase in the

number of healthy days caused by a one-unit increase in the stock of
health. Two monetary magnitudes are necessary to convert this marginal
product into value terms, because consumers desire health for two reasons.
The discounted wage rate measures the monetary value of a one-unit in-
crease in the total amount of time available for market and nonmarket
activities, and the term Uhk/Xmeasures the discounted monetary equiva-
lent of the increase in utility due to a one-unit increase in healthy time.
Thus, the sum of these two terms measures the discounted marginal value
to consumers of the output produced by health capital.
While equation (10) determines the optimal amount of gross invest-
ment in period i - 1, equation (11) shows the condition for minimizing
the cost of producing a given quantity of gross investment. Total cost is
minimized when the increase in gross investment from spending an
additional dollar on medical care equals the increase in gross investment
from spending an additional dollar on time. Since the gross investment
production function is homogeneous of degree 1 and since the prices of
medical care and time are independent of the level of these inputs, the
average cost of gross investment is constant and equal to the marginal
cost.
To examine the forces that affect the demand for health and gross in-
vestment, it is useful to convert equation (10) into a slightly different
form. If gross investment in period i is positive, then
Hi . Wi+,Gi+l ( 1- i+1) Wi+2Gj+2
(1+r)i (1+r)+l ? (1+r)i?+2
(1 hips) ... (- bn- 1) WnGn Uh,+?G+?1
(1 +r)11 ? ?.

+ (1 8sl --( n-1) Z^.(12)

From (10) and (12),
_ _ ti- WjGj UhiG, (1 - iti
Th rr)ef (e
+,r) X +r)i
Therefore,
r zPUhi
230 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

where n-1 is the percentage rate of change in marginal cost between

period i - 1 and period i.9 Equation (13) implies that the undiscounted
value of the marginal product of the optimal stock of health capital at
any moment in time must equal the supply price of capital, 7r._ (r -
Ft,1 + hi). The latter contains interest, depreciation, and capital gains
components and may be interpreted as the rental price or user cost of
health capital.
Condition (13) fully determines the demand for capital goods that can
be bought and sold in a perfect market. In such a market, if firms or
households acquire one unit of stock in period i - 1 at price -1, they
can sell (1 - hi) units at price Hi at the end of period i. Consequently,
ni-1(r - i-1 + hi) measures the cost of holding one unit of capital for
one period. The transaction just described allows individuals to raise their
capital in period i alone by one unit and is clearly feasible for stocks like
automobiles, houses, refrigerators,and producer durables. It suggests that
one can define a set of single-period flow equilibria for stocks that last
for many periods.
In my model, the stock of health capital cannot be sold in the capital
market, just as the stock of knowledge cannot be sold. This means that
gross investment must be nonnegative. Although sales of health capital are
ruled out, provided gross investment is positive, there exists a used cost of
capital that in equilibrium must equal the value of the marginal product
of the stock.'0 An intuitive interpretation of this result is that exchanges
over time in the stock of health by an individual substitute for exchanges
in the capital market. Suppose a consumer desires to increase his stock
of health by one unit in period i. Then he must increase gross investment
in period i - 1 by one unit. If he simultaneously reduces gross investment
in period i by (1 - &) units, then he has engaged in a transaction that
raises Hi and Hi alone by one unit. Put differently, he has essentially
rented one unit of capital from himself for one period. The magnitude of
the reduction in Ii is smaller the greater the rate of depreciation, and its
dollar value is larger the greater the rate of increase in marginal cost over
time. Thus, the depreciation and capital gains components are as relevant
to the user cost of health as they are to the user cost of any other durable.
Of course, the interest component of user cost is easy to interpret, for if
one desires to increase his stock of health rather than his stock of some
other asset by one unit in a given period, rri-1 measures the interest
payment he forgoes."

9Equation (13) assumes 1 -

10 For similar conclusions with regard to nonsalable physical capital and with regard
to a nonsalable stock of "goodwill" produced by advertising, see Arrow (1968) and
Nerlove and Arrow (1962).
11 In a continuous time model, the user cost of health capital can be derived in one
step. If continuous time is employed, the term bin -i does not appear in the user cost
formula. The right-hand side of (13) becomes ;ti(r - i + be), where Ttj is the in-
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 23I

A slightly different form of equation (13) emerges if both sides are

divided by the marginal cost of gross investment:
-
y<j + ai = r - -1 +- 8j(13')
Here yj - (WiGi)/ i- is the marginal monetary rate of return on an
investment in health and

[ (U)(l(r)riGI

-1 ~~~_j
is the psychic rate of return. In equilibrium, the total rate of return on
an investment in health must equal the user cost of health capital in terms
of the price of gross investment. The latter variable is defined as the sum
of the real-own rate of interest and the rate of depreciation.

C. The Pure Investment Model

It is clear that the number of sick days and the number of healthy days
are complements; their sum equals the constant length of the period.
From equation (8), the marginal utility of sick time is -UhI. Thus, by
putting healthy days in the utility function, one implicitly assumes that
sick days yield disutility. If healthy days did not enter the utility function
directly, the marginal monetary rate of return on an investment in health
would equal the cost of health capital, and health would be solely an in-
vestment commodity.12In formalizing the model, I have been reluctant
to treat health as pure investment because many observers believe the
demand for it has both investment and consumption aspects (see, for
example, Mushkin 1962, p. 131; Fuchs 1966, p. 86). But to simplify the
remainder of the theoretical analysis and to contrast health capital with
other forms of human capital, the consumption aspects of demand are
ignored from now on.'3
If the marginal utility of healthy days or the marginal disutility of sick
days were equal to zero, condition (13') for the optimal amount of health
capital in period i would reduce to

Wi--+1 y= r- (14)

stantaneous percentage rate of change of marginal cost at age i. For a proof, see Part
B of the Mathematical Appendix.
12 To avoid confusion, a note on terminology is in order. If health were entirely an
investment commodity, it would yield monetary, but not utility, returns. Regardless of
whether health is investment, consumption, or a mixture of the two, one can speak of
a gross investment function since the commodity in question is a durable.
13 Elsewhere, I have used a pure consumption model to interpret the set of phenom-
ena that are analyzed in Sections III and IV. In the pure consumption model, the
marginal monetary rate of return on an investment in health is set equal to zero (see
Grossman 1970, chap. 3).
232 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Equation (14) can be derived explicitly by excluding health from the

utility function and by redefining the full wealth constraint as'4
-
R' ==Ao?+Y.W (15)
(
(1 + r)i
Maximization of R' with respect to gross investment in periods i - 1 and
i yields
ati-1i WlG (1 -)W+jG+
(1 + r)il (1 +r)i (1 +r)i+l
(16)
(1+- b) ... (1 - n-)WnGn
(1 + r)n

__i Wi+,G+l, (1- 8+l)Wi+2Gi+2

(1 + r)- (1 ? r)i+l (1 + r)i+2
(17)
+(1 - b4?) . ... (1 8n- )WnGn
(1 r)n
These two equations imply that (14) must hold.
Figure 1 illustrates the determinations of the optimal stock of health
capital at any age i. The demand curve MEC shows the relationship
between the stock of health and the rate of return on an investment or the
marginal efficiency of health capital, yl. The supply curve S shows the
relationship between the stock of health and the cost of capital, r -li-1
+ hi. Since the cost of capital is independent of the stock, the supply
curve is infinitely elastic. Provided the MEC schedule slopes downward,

IALEC

'..*
rr* -,il + o* \ S
5is

FIG. 1

14 Since the gross investment production function is homogeneous of the first degree,
PMj + WiTHj = Jr1Ij.
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 233

hli

365_ - -

FIG. 2

the equilibrium stock is given by Hi*, where the supply and demand
curves intersect.
In the model, the wage rate and the marginal cost of gross investment
do not depend on the stock of health. Therefore, the MEC schedule would
be negatively inclined if and only if Gi, the marginal product of health
capital, were diminishing. Since the output produced by health capital has
a finite upper limit of 365 healthy days, it seems reasonable to assume
diminishing marginal productivity. Figure 2 shows a plausible relation-
ship between the stock of health and the number of healthy days. This
relationship may be called the "productionfunction of healthy days." The
slope of the curve in the figure at any point gives the marginal product
of health capital. The number of healthy days equals zero at the death
stock Hmin, so that Q - TLi 365 is an alternative definition of death.
Beyond Hmin,healthy time increases at a decreasing rate and eventually
approaches its upper asymptote of 365 days as the stock becomes large.
In Sections III and IV, equation (14) and figure 1 are used to trace out
the lifetime path of health capital and gross investment, to explore the
effects of variations in depreciation rates, and to examine the impact of
changes in the marginal cost of gross investment. Before I turn to these
matters, some comments on the general properties of the model are in
order. It should be realized that equation (14) breaks down whenever
desired gross investment equals zero. In this situation, the present value
of the marginal cost of gross investment would exceed the present value
of marginal benefits for all positive quantities of gross investment, and
equations (16) and (17) would be replaced by inequalities.15 The re-
mainder of the discussion rules out zero gross investment by assumption,
but the conclusions reached would have to be modified if this were not
the case. One justification for this assumption is that it is observed em-
pirically that most individuals make positive outlays on medical care
throughout their life cycles.

15 Formally, y ?r - i_ 1 + 8i, if Ii-1 = It = ?

234 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Some persons have argued that, since gross investment in health cannot
be nonnegative, equilibriumcondition (14) should be derived by using the
optimal control techniques developed by Pontryagin and others. Arrow
(1968) employs these techniques to analyze a firm's demand for non-
salable physical capital. Since, however, gross investment in health is
rarely equal to zero in the real world, the methods I use-discrete time
maximization in the text and the calculus of variations in the Mathe-
matical Appendix-are quite adequate. Some advantages of my methods
are that they are simple, easy to interpret, and familiar to most econo-
mists. In addition, they generate essentially the same equilibriumcondition
as the Pontryagin method. Both Arrow and I conclude that, if desired
gross investment were positive, then the marginal efficiency of nonsalable
capital would equal the cost of capital. On the other hand, given zero
gross investment, the cost of capital would exceed its marginal efficiency.
The monetary returns to an investment in health differ from the returns
to investments in education, on-the-job training, and other forms of human
capital, since the latter investments raise wage rates.'6 Of course, the
amount of health capital might influence the wage rate, but it necessarily
influences the time lost from all activities due to illness or injury. To
emphasize the novelty of my approach, I assume that health is not a
determinant of the wage rate. Put differently, a person's stock of knowl-
edge affects his market and nonmarket productivity, while his stock of
health determines the total amount of time he can spend producing
money earnings and commodities. Since both market time and nonmarket
time are relevant, even individuals who are not in the labor force have an
incentive to invest in their health. For such individuals, the marginal
product of health capital would be converted into a dollar equivalent by
multiplying by the monetary value of the marginal utility of time.
Since there are constant returns to scale in the production of gross
investment and since input prices are given, the marginal cost of gross
investment and its percentage rate of change over the life cycle are
exogenous variables. In other words, these two variables are independent
of the rate of investment and the stock of health. This implies that con-
sumers reach their desired stock of capital immediately. It also implies
that the stock rather than gross investment is the basic decision variable
in the model. By this I mean that consumers respond to changes in the
cost of capital by altering the marginal product of health capital and not
the marginal cost of gross investment. Therefore, even though equation
(14) is not independent of equations (16) and (17), it can be used to
determine the optimal path of health capital and, by implication, the
optimal path of gross investment.'7
16This difference is emphasized by Mushkin (1962, pp. 132-33).
17This statement is subject to the modification that the optimal path of capital must
always imply nonnegative gross investment.
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 235

Indeed, the major differencesbetween my health model and the human

capital models of Becker (1967) and Ben-Porath (1967) are the assump-
tions made about the behavior of the marginal product of capital and the
marginal cost of gross investment. Both Becker and Ben-Porath assume
that any one person owns only a small amount of the total stock of
human capital in the economy. Therefore, the marginal product of his
stock is constant. To rule out solutions in which the desired stock of
capital is either zero or infinite, they postulate that the marginal cost of
producing gross additions to the stock is positively related to the rate
of gross investment. Since marginal cost rises, the desired stock of human
capital is not reached immediately. Moreover, since the marginal product
of capital is constant, gross investment is the basic decision variable in
these models.'8 In my model, on the other hand, the marginal product of
health capital falls because the output produced by this capital has a
finite upper limit. Consequently, it is not necessary to introduce the
assumption of rising marginal cost in order to determine the optimal
stock.
To illustrate how the implications of the health and human capital
models differ, suppose the rate of depreciation on either the stock of health
or human capital rises. This upsets the equality between the cost of
capital and its marginal efficiency. To restore this equality in the health
model, the marginal product of health capital must rise, which would
occur only if the stock of capital declines. To restore this equality in the
human capital model, marginal cost must fall, which is possible only if
gross investment declines.'9

III. Life Cycle Variations in Depreciation Rates

Equation (14) enables one to study the behavior of the demand for
health and gross investment over the life cycle. To simplify the analysis,
it is assumed that the wage rate, the stock of knowledge, the marginal cost
of gross investment, and the marginal productivity of health capital are
independent of age. These assumptions are not as restrictive as they may
seem. To be sure, wage rates and human capital are undoubtedly cor-
related with age, but the effects of shifts in these variables are treated in
Section IV. Therefore, the results obtained in this section may be viewed
as partial effects. That is, they show the impact of a pure increase in age
on the demand for health, with all other variables held constant.

18 For a complete discussion of these points, see Becker (1967, pp. 5-12) and Ben-
Porath (1967, pp. 353-61). For models of the demand for physical capital by firms in
which the marginal cost of investment and the amount of investment are positively
correlated, see, for example, Eisner and Strotz (1963) and Gould (1968).
19 Section III demonstrates that an increase in the rate of depreciation on health
capital might cause gross investment to increase.
236 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Since marginal cost does not depend on age, a,-, - 0 and equation
(14) reduces to
Ryj- r + 8j. ( 18)

It is apparent from equation (18) that, if the rate of depreciation were

independent of age, a single quantity of H would satisfy the equality
between the marginal rate of return and the cost of health capital. Con-
sequently, there would be no net investment or disinvestment after the
initial period. One could not, in general, compare Ho and H1 because
accumulation in the initial period would depend on the discrepancy be-
tween the inherited stock and the stock desired in period 1. This dis-
crepency in turn would be related to variations in Ho and other variables
across individuals. But, given zero costs of adjusting to the desired level
immediately, H would be constant after period 1. Under the stated
condition of a constant depreciation rate, individuals would choose an
infinite life if they choose to live beyond period 1. In other words, if
H1 > Hiin, then Hi would always exceed the death stock.20
To permit the demand for health to vary with age, suppose the rate of
depreciation depends on age. In general, any time path of hi is possible.
For example, the rate of depreciation might be negatively correlated with
age during the early stages of the life cycle. Again, the time path might be
nonmonotonic,so that bi rises during some periods and falls during others.
Despite the existence of a wide variety of possible time paths, it is ex-
tremely plausible to assume that hi is positively correlated with age after
some point in the life cycle. This correlation can be inferred because, as
an individual ages, his physical strength and memory capacity deteriorate.
Surely, a rise in the rate of depreciation on his stock of health is merely
one manifestation of the biological process of aging. Therefore, the anal-
ysis focuses on the effects of an increase in the rate of depreciation with
age.
Since a rise in bi causes the supply curve of health capital to shift up-
ward, it would reduce the quantity of health capital demanded over the
life cycle. Graphically, an increase in the cost of capital from r + bi to
r + bi+1 in figure 3 reduces the optimal stock from Hi to Hi+,. The
greater the elasticity of the MEC schedule, the greater the decrease in
the optimal stock with age. Put differently, the slower the increase in the
marginal product of health capital as H falls, the greater the decrease in
the optimal stock.
Differentiation of equation (18) with respect to age quantifies the
percentage rate of decrease in the stock of health over the life cycle:

Hi - -si F-iAl (19)

20 The possibility that death can occur in period 1 is ruled out from now on.
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 237

r + 6,

r+6i~lX
r s I I
I I
II
11,r IIl in 1 I.

FIG. 3

In this equation, the tilde notation denotes a percentage time derivative

- -
(H (dHildi) (1Hi), etc.), and the new symbols are: si i/r +
the share of depreciation in the cost of health capital and
a lnH -a lnH d ln Hi
a In(r + 8) a In yj In Gi

the elasticity of the MEC schedule (In stands for natural logarithm).21
Equation (19) indicates that the absolute value of the percentage de-
crease in H is positively related to the elasticity of the MEC schedule,
the share of depreciation in the cost of health capital, and the percentage
rate of increase in the rate of depreciation. If -i and bi were constant, the
curve relating In Hi to age would be concave unless r - 0, since22

d~ _ 6
20)
= Hi sil 1si)- ?(
d,
The absolute value of Hi increases over the life cycle because depre-
ciation's share in the cost of capital rises with age.

21 From equation (18), In(r + hi) = In W + In

Gi - In ;t. Therefore,
bi Ski aln Gi
r+b hi aln HiHl
or

=-
'Hi
Si 8i
El

22 Differentiation of (19) with respect to age yields

6b [(r + bi) 8jb - 8i(8i8)

Hyii - -
(r + i)2
or
F

Hii- i2
(r +
238 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

If hi grows continuously with age after some point in the life cycle,
persons would choose to live a finite life. Since H declines over the life
cycle, it would eventually fall to Hmin, the death stock. When the cost of
health capital is r + n,,in figure 3, H,, Hmi,,, and death occurs. At
death, no time is available for market and nonmarket activities, since
healthy time equals zero. Therefore, the monetary equivalent of sick time
in period n would completely exhaust potential full earnings, W,,Q. More-
over, consumption of the commodity Z,, would equal zero, since no time
would be available for its production if total time equals sick time.23 Be-
cause individuals could not produce commodities, total utility would be
driven to zero at death.24
Having characterized the optimal path of Hi, one can proceed to ex-
amine the behavior of gross investment. Gross investment's life cycle
profile would not, in general, simply mirror that of health capital. In
other words, even though health capital falls over the life cycle, gross
investment might increase, remain constant, or decrease. This follows
because a rise in the rate of depreciation not only reduces the amount of
health capital demanded by consumers but also reduces the amount of
capital supplied to them by a given amount of gross investment. If the
change in supply exceeded the change in demand, individuals would have
an incentive to close this gap by increasing gross investment. On the
other hand, if the change in supply were less than the change in demand,
gross investment would tend to fall over the life cycle.
To predict the effect of an increase in bi with age on gross investment,
note that the net investment can be approximatedby HjHj.25Since gross
investment equals net investment plus depreciation,
In It In Hi + In (Hi + 8j). (21)
Differentiation of equation (21) with respect to age yields

Hi + 8,Hj + Hji + hbii

Ii_ i hi,
~~i+
Suppose bi and Fj were constant. Then from (19) and (20), the expres-
sion for Ii would simplify to

23 The above statement assumes that

Zi cannot be produced with Xi alone. This
would be true if, say, the production function were Cobb-Douglas.
24 Utility equal zero when H - H
mi, provided the death time utility function is
such that U (O) - 0.
25 That is,

dHi 1 H
Hi+j Hi -Hi .HiHi.
di Hi
The use of this approximation essentially allows one to ignore the one-period lag be-
tween a change in gross investment and a change in the stock of health.
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 239

I =at 1SiE) (bi -Si~b) + S*4 (22)

-i
(22)

Since health capital cannot be sold, gross investment cannot be nega-

tive. Therefore, h > -Hi.26 That is, if the stock of health falls over the
life cycle, the absolute value of the percentage rate of net disinvestment
cannot exceed the rate of depreciation. Provided gross investment does
not equal zero, the term bi - sigh in equation (22) must exceed zero. It
follows that a sufficient condition for gross investment to be positively
correlated with the depreciation rate is ? < 11si. Thus, Ii would definitely
be positive at every point if ? < 1.
The important conclusion is reached that, if the elasticity of the MEC
schedule were less than 1, gross investment and the depreciation rate
would be positively correlated over the life cycle, while gross investment
and the stock of health would be negatively correlated. Phrased differ-
ently, given a relatively inelastic demand curve for health, individuals
would desire to offset part of the reduction in health capital caused by
an increase in the rate of depreciation by increasing their gross invest-
ments. In fact, the relationship between the stock of health and the num-
ber of healthy days suggests that ? is smaller than 1. A general equation
for the healthy-days production function illustrated by figure 2 is

hi =365 BHi , (23)

where B and C are positive constants. The correspondingMEC schedule
is27

Iny i=lnBC- (C-+ 1) InH + lnW-Injr. (24)

The elasticity of this schedule is given by
alnHH 1
alnyyi (1 +C)

since C > 0.
Observe that with the depreciation rate held constant, increases in
gross investment would increase the stock of health and the number of
healthy days. But the preceding discussion indicates that, because the

26 Gross investment is nonnegative as long as

Ii = Hi (Hi + bi) > 0, or i >-Hi.
27 If (23) were the production function, the marginal product of
health capital would
be
- C-1
Gi BCH1
or
ln Gi-ln u
nBC (C + 1)in Hir
Since In -y, = In Gi + In W -In aT,one uses the equation for In Gi to obtain (24).
240 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

depreciation rate rises with age, it is not unlikely that unhealthy (old)
people will make larger gross investments than healthy (young) people.
This means that sick time, TLi, will be positively correlated with Mi and
THi, the medical care and own time inputs in the gross investment func-
tion, over the life cycle.28 In this sense, at least part of TL, or TH, may
be termed "recuperationtime."
Unlike other models of the demand for medical care, my model does
not assert that "need" or illness, measured by the level of the rate of
depreciation, will definitely be positively correlated with utilization of
medical services. Instead, it derives this correlation from the magnitude
of the elasticity of the MEC schedule and indicates that the relationship
between the stock of health and the number of healthy days will tend
to create a positive correlation. If E is less than 1, medical care and
"need" will definitely be positively correlated. Moreover, the smaller the
value of A, the greater the explanatory power of "need" relative to that
of the other variables in the demand curve for medical care.
It should be realized that the power of this model of life cycle behav-
ior is that it can treat the biological process of aging in terms of con-
ventional economic analysis. Biological factors associated with aging raise
the price of health capital and cause individuals to substitute away from
future health until death is "chosen." It can be concluded that here, as
elsewhere in economics, people reject a prospect-the prospect of longer
life in this case-because it is too costly to achieve. In particular, only if
the elasticity of the MEC schedule were zero would individuals fully
compensate for the increase in hi and, therefore, maintain a constant
stock of health.

IV. Market and Nonmarket Efficiency

Persons who face the same cost of health capital would demand the same
amount of health only if the determinants of the rate of return on an
investment were held constant. Changes in the value of the marginal
product of health capital and the marginal cost of gross investment shift
the MEC schedule and, therefore, alter the quantity of health demanded
even if the supply curve of capital does not change. I now identify the
variables that determine the level of the MEC schedule and examine the
effects of shifts in these variables on the demand for health and medical
care. In particular, I consider the effects of variations in market effi-
ciency, measured by the wage rate, and nonmarket efficiency, measured
by human capital, on the MEC schedule.

28 Note that the time path of Hi or hi would be nonmonotonic if the time path of
8i were characterized by the occurrence of peaks and troughs. In particular, hi would
be relatively low and THi and M, would be relatively high (if E < 1) when 8, was
relatively high; these periods would be associated with relatively severe illness.
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 24I

Before beginning the analysis, two preliminary comments are in order.

First, the discussion pertains to uniform shifts in variables that influence
the rate of return across persons of the same age. That is, if the variable
Xi is one determinant, then
dlInXi
1, all i.
dlnXi-,
Second, the discussion proceeds under the assumption that the real rate
of interest, the rate of depreciation, and the elasticity of the MEC
schedule are constant. These two comments imply that an increase in Xi
will alter the amount of capital demanded but will not alter its rate of
change over the life cycle.29 Note from equation (21):
dlnI dlnH (25)
dX dX
since the rate of depreciation and the percentage rate of net investment
do not depend on X.30 Equation (25) indicates that percentage changes
in health and gross investment for a one-unit change in X are identical.
Consequently, the effect of an increase in X on either of these two vari-
ables can be treated interchangeably.

A. Wage Effects
Since the value of the marginal product of health capital equals WG, an
increase in the wage rate, W, raises the monetary equivalent of the mar-
ginal product of a given stock. Put differently, the higher a person's wage
rate, the greater the value to him of an increase in healthy time. A con-
sumer's wage rate measures his market efficiency or the rate at which he
can convert hours of work into money earnings. Hence, it is obviously
positively correlated with the benefits of a reduction in the time he loses
from the production of money earnings due to illness. Moreover, a high
wage rate induces an individual to substitute market goods for his own
time in the production of commodities. This substitution continues until
in equilibrium the monetary value of the marginal product of consump-
tion time equals the wage rate. So the benefits from a reduction in time
lost from nonmarket production are also positively correlated with the
wage.
29 Strictly speaking, shifts in Xi would definitely have no effects on Hi if and only
if X. -0. Even though a uniform shift in X. implies that there is no correlation be-
tween its level and rate of change, Hi might be altered if Xi #&0. For a complete dis-
cussion of this point, see Grossman (1970, p. 49).
30 Since the analysis in this section deals with variations in X among individuals of
the same age, time subscripts are omitted from now on. Note also that (25), like the
expression for Ii, ignores the one-period lag between an increase in gross investment
and an increase in the stock of health.
242 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

C la,
(',IW=1 J1EC2: W=W2>Wl

_ _ _I \___ _ I \_ _ _ _

FIG. 4

If an upward shift in the wage rate had no effect on the marginal cost
of gross investment, a 1 percent increase in it would increase the rate of
return, y, associated with a fixed stock of capital by 1 percent. In fact,
this is not the case because own time is an input in the gross investment
function. If K is the fraction of the total cost of gross investment ac-
counted for by time, then a 1 percent rise in W would increase marginal
cost, aT,by K percent. After one nets out the correlation between W and
AT,the percentage growth in y would equal 1 - K, which exceeds zero as
long as gross investment is not produced entirely by time.
Since the wage rate and the level of the MEC schedule are positively
correlated, the demand for health would be positively related to W.
Graphically, an upward shift in W from W1 to W2 in figure 4 shifts the
MEC schedule from MEC1 to MEC2 and, with no change in the cost of
health capital, increases the optimal stock from H1 to H2. A formula for
the wage elasticity of health capital is31
eH,W (1 - K)E. (26)
This elasticity is larger the larger the elasticity of the MEC schedule and
the larger the share of medical care in total gross investment cost
Although the wage rate and the demand for health or gross invest-

31 Differentiation of the natural logarithm of (18) with respect to In W yields

dIn(r+ ) 0 1 + 0lnG dlnH dlnit
dlnW amnH dlnW dmnW
W
OO- I11- KK--eH '
.~~~~~~F
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 243

ment are positively related, W has no effect on the amount of gross in-
vestment supplied by a given input of medical care. Therefore, the demand
for medical care would rise with the wage. If medical care and own time
were employed in fixed proportions in the gross investment production
function, the wage elasticity of M would equal the wage elasticity of H.
On the other hand, given a positive elasticity of substitution, M would
increase more rapidly than H. This follows because consumers would
have an incentive to substitute medical care for their relatively more ex-
pensive own time. A formula for the wage elasticity of medical care is
emJ-W= Ka,, + (1 - K)8, (27)
where ap is the elasticity of substitution between M and Th in the pro-
duction of gross investment.32 The greater the value of op, the greater
the difference between the wage elasticities of M and H.
Note that an increase in the price of either medical care or own time
raises the marginal or average cost of gross investment. But the effects
of changes in these two input prices are not symmetrical. In particular,
an upward shift in the price of medical care lowers the MEC schedule
and causes the demand for health to decline. This difference arises be-
cause the price of time influences the value of the marginal product of
health capital while the price of medical care does not.

B. The Role of Human Capital

Up to now, no systematic allowance has been made for variations in the
efficiency of nonmarket production. Yet it is known that firms in the
market sector of an economy obtain varying amounts of output from the
same vector of direct inputs. These differences have been traced to forces
like technology and entrepreneurialcapacity, forces that shift production
functions or that alter the environment in which firms operate. Reason-
ing by analogy, one can say that certain environmental variables influ-
ence productivity in the nonmarket sector by altering the marginal
products of the direct inputs in household production functions. This
study is particularly concerned with environmental variables that can be
associated with a particular person-his or her race, sex, stock of human
capital, etc. While the analysis that follows could pertain to any environ-
mental variable, it is well documented that the more educated are more
efficient producers of money earnings. Consequently, it is assumed that
shifts in human capital, measured by education, change productivity in

32 For a proof, see Part C of the Mathematical Appendix. The corresponding equa-
tion for the wage elasticity of the own time input is

eTHW (1 - K) (e - (p) .
This elasticity is positive only if ? > a.
244 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

the household as well as in the market, and the analysis focuses on this
environmental variable.
The specific proposition to be examined is that education improves
nonmarket productivity. If this were true, then one would have a con-
venient way to analyze and quantify what have been termed the non-
monetary benefits to an investment in education. The model can, however,
treat adverse as well as beneficial effects and suggests empirical tests to
discriminate between the two.33
To determine the effects of education on production, marginal cost,
and the demand for health and medical care, recall that the gross invest-
ment production function is homogeneous of degree 1 in its two direct
inputs-medical care and own time. It follows that the marginal product
of E, the index of human capital, would be
I a (g tg') ~-1-TH Og'
=M +

where g - tg' is the marginal product of medical care and g' is the mar-
ginal product. of time.34 If a circumflex over a variable denotes a per-
centage change per unit change in E, the last equation can be rewritten as
01 1 _ [M(g-tg') ] ( _gg_tg_ T A( )
rH- F7 L i g -tg' )+ jg)
(28)
Equation (28) indicates that the percentage change in gross investment
supplied to a consumer by a one-unit change in E is a weighted average
of the percentage changes in the marginal products of M and TH.35
If E increases productivity, then rH > 0. Provided E raises both mar-
ginal products by the same percentage, equation (28) would simplify to
rH g-g'A (29)

33 The model developed here is somewhat similar to the one used by Michael (1969).
34 If I is homogeneous of degree 1 in M and TH, then from Euler's theorem

I M(g - tg) + THg'.

Differentiation of this equation with respect to E, holding M and TH constant, yields
the marginal product of human capital.
35 Instead of putting education in the gross investment production function, one
could let it affect the rate of depreciation or the marginal productivity of health capital.
This approach has not been taken because a general treatment of environmental vari-
ables like education must permit these variables to influence all household commodities.
Since depreciation rates and stock-flow relationships are relevant only if a particular
commodity is durable, a symmetrical development of the role of environmental vari-
ables requires that they affect household production functions and not depreciation
rates or stock-flow relationships. In a more complicated version of the model, the gross
investment function, the rate of depreciation, and the marginal productivity of health
capital might all depend on education. But the basic implications of the model would
not change.
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 245

In this case, education would have a "neutral" impact on the marginal

products of all factors. The rest of the discussion assumes "factor neu-
trality."
Because education raises the marginal product of the direct inputs, it
reduces the quantity of these inputs required to produce a given amount
of gross investment. Hence, with no change in input prices, an increase
in E lowers average or marginal cost. In fact, one easily shows that
-rH - g-
A A All
zT = =,_g (30)
where 'a is the percentage change in average or marginal cost.36 So, if
education increases the marginal products of medical care and own time
by 3 percent, it would reduce the price of gross investment by 3 percent.
Suppose education does in fact raise productivity so that m and E are
negatively correlated. Then, with the wage rate and the marginal product
of a given stock of health held constant, an increase in education would
raise the marginal efficiency of health capital and shift the MEC schedule
to the right.3 In figure 5, an increase in E from E1 to E2 shifts the MEC
curve from MEC1 to MEC2. If the cost of capital were independent of
E, there would be no change in the supply curve, and the more educated
would demand a larger optimal stock (compare H1 and H, in fig. 5).
The percentage increase in the amount of health demanded for a one-
unit increase in E is given by38
H = rHS. (31)
Since rH indicates the percentage increase in gross investment supplied
by a one-unit increase in E, shifts in this variable would not alter the
demand for medical care or own time if rH equaled H. For example, a
person with ten years of formal schooling might demand 3 percent more
health than a person with nine years. If the medical care and own time
inputs were held constant, the former individual's one extra year of

36 For a proof, see Part D of the Mathematical Appendix, where the human capital
formulas are developed in more detail.
37 It should be stressed that the model of nonmarket productivity variations pre-
sented here examines the partial effect of an increase in education with the wage rate
held constant. Although these two variables are surely positively correlated, this corre-
lation does not appear to be large enough to prevent one from isolating pure changes
in nonmarket productivity at the empirical level. For some evidence on this point, see
Grossman (1970, chap. 5) and Michael (1969, chaps. 4 and 5).
:38If W and r + b are fixed and if G depends only on H, then

d In(r + 8) dnmG d nH d In t
dE a lnH dE dE
or
A
H
o- - + rH.
E
246 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

FIG. 5

schooling might supply him with 3 percent more health. Given this con-
dition, both persons would demand the same amounts of M and TH. As
this example illustrates, any effect of a change in E on the demand for
medical care or time reflects a positive or negative difference between
H and rH:39
M TH -rH(e - 1)* (32)

Equation (32) suggests that, if the elasticity of the MEC schedule

were less than unity, the more educated would demand more health but
less medical care. Put differently, they would have an incentive to offset
part of the increase in health caused by an increase in education by re-
ducing their purchases of medical services. Note that if rH were negative
and E were less than 1, H would be negative and M would be positive.
Since education improves market productivity, I have examined the im-
plications of the hypothesis that rH is positive. But the model is appli-
cable whether rH is positive or negative and gives empirical predictions
in either case.

V. Summary and Conclusions

The main purpose of this paper has been to construct a model of the
demand for the commodity "good health." The central proposition of the
model is that health can be viewed as a durable capital stock that pro-
duces an output of healthy time. A person determines his optimal stock
of health capital at any age by equating the marginal efficiency of this
capital to its user cost in terms of the price of gross investment. Graphi-
cally, each person has a negatively inclined demand curve for health

3!) The terms M and TH are equal because, by the definition of factor neutrality, E
has no effect on the ratio of the marginal product of M to the marginal product of TH.
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 247

capital, which relates the marginal efficiency of capital to the stock, and
an infinitely elastic supply curve. The equilibrium stock is determined by
the intersection of these two functions. The demand curve slopes down-
ward due to diminishing marginal productivity of health capital.
Although in recent years there have been a number of extremely in-
teresting explorations of the forces associated with health differentials
(Adelman 1963; Fuchs 1965; Larmore 1967; Newhouse 1968; Auster,
Leveson, and Sarachek 1969), these studies have not developed behav-
ioral models that can predict the effects that are in fact observed. Con-
sequently, the framework I have developed is important because of its
ability to bridge the existing gap between theory and empiricism in the
analysis of health differentials. My model explains variations in both
health and medical care among persons in terms of variations in supply
and demand curves for health capital. This paper has traced upward
shifts in the supply curve to increases in the rate of depreciation on the
stock of health with age, and it has traced upward shifts in the demand
curve to increases in the wage rate and education.
One prediction of the model is that if the rate of depreciation increases
with age, at least after some point in the life cycle, then the quantity of
health capital demanded would decline over the life cycle. At the same
time, provided the elasticity of the marginal efficiency of capital schedule
were less than unity, expenditures on medical care would rise with age.
A second prediction is that a consumer's demand for health and medical
care should be positively correlated with his wage rate. A third prediction
is that if education increases the efficiency with which gross investments
in health are produced, then the more educated would demand a larger
optimal stock of health. On the other hand, given a relatively inelastic
demand curve, the correlation between medical outlays and education
would be negative. It should be noted that one of the advantages of the
model is that it enables one to study the effects of demographicvariables
like age and education without assuming that these variables are posi-
tively or negatively correlated with consumers' "tastes" for health. In-
stead, these variables enter the analysis through their impact on either
the cost of health capital or its marginal efficiency, and one can make
strong predictions concerning their effects on health levels or medical
care.
It must be admitted that this paper has made a number of simplifying
assumptions, all of which should be relaxed in future work. A more gen-
eral model would treat the depreciation rate as an endogenous variable
and would not rule out periods in which the optimal amount of gross
investment is zero. Most important of all, it would modify the assump-
tion that consumers fully anticipate intertemporal variations in depre-
ciation rates and, therefore, know their age of death with certainty. Since
in the real world length of life is surely not known with perfect foresight,
248 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

it might be postulated that a given consumer faces a probability distribu-

tion of depreciation rates in each period. This uncertainty would give
persons an incentive to protect themselves against the "losses" associated
with higher than average depreciation rates by purchasing various types
of insurance and perhaps by holding an "excess" stock of health.40 But
whatever modifications are made, it would be a mistake to neglect the
essential features of the model I have presented in this paper. Any model
must recognize that health is a durable capital stock, that health capital
differs in important respects from other forms of human capital, and that
the demand for medical care must be derived from the more fundamental
demand for "good health."

Appendix A

Mathematical Appendix
A. Utility Maximization-Discrete Time
To maximize utility subject to the full wealth and production function con-
straints, form the Lagrangian expression
L= U(fOHoI ... ., <nHn2Zo, .. Zn)
Ci + Clt. + WiTLiX
+ROR (1 + r)i J.()
t

where Ci = PiMi + WiTHi and Cli - ViXi + WiTi. Differentiating L with re-
spect to gross investment in period i - 1 and setting the partial derivative
equal to zero, one obtains
&hIz 3H4 Ohi+1 3IJj~i
Uhi as dt + Uhi+l -H a

+ + Uhn~1 ( dCi- ildli- 1)

ahn aln -
U+,
.1i- nH 1 (1 +
r)(i-

+ Wl(a TL,/OHi)/ (OHi/Ii_ 1)

(1 +r)i
Wi+l (aTLi+,/8Hi+,)/(aHi+,/ali-1)
(1 +r)i+l
Wn(adTLn/aHn) (aHn/a i-1 )]. A

But

ahi
a__i aH1 - (1 - al

40 For an attempt to introduce uncertainty into a model that views health as a

durable capital stock, see Phelps (in preparation).
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 249

a
=( t ..1td - i-, and = G.
G
(1O- (1.. 6'1Idj OHj
Therefore,
________ WiGi (1 - i)Wi++Gi+l
(1+ r) i- 1 (1 + r)i -+- (1+ r)i+ 1

(1 - 60 ... (1
O - ..n.-.... Uhk
++ Gi
(++r)} r)
Uk~~1 U1+
+ (1 - hi) Ak+l Gi+i + (1 -hi) ... . (1 an-l) n Gn

(A3)

B. Utility Maximization-Continuous Time

Let the utility function be
U - mi f (OiHi, Zj)di, (A4)
where mi is the weight attached to utility in period i. Equation (A4) defines an
additive utility function, but any monotonic transformation of this function
could be employed.41 Let all household production functions be homogeneous of
degree 1. Then Ci - jIj C1j = qjZ1,42 and full wealth can be written as
R f e-i(jIl, + qjZ, + WiTLi)di. (A5)
By definition,
Ii - Hz + 6jHi, (A6)
where Hj, is the instantaneous rate of change of capital stock. Substitution of
(A6) into (A5) yields
R f e-ri(nrIbHj + mH, + qjZj+ WiTL) di. (A7)
To maximize the utility function, form the Lagrangian
L- - f
-R [mif (OiHi, ZA) Xe-i(;r6.Hj
+ - iTH,+ qjZj+ WjTL1)]di, (A8)
or
L - R 5 Q(Hi, Hi, ZZ,i)di, (A9)
where
Q mif((Hii, ZL) -e- i(ribjHj + mJHi+ qjZj+ WiTiL).
(A10)
Euler's equation for the optimal path of Hi is

41 Strotz (1955-56) has shown, however, that certain restrictions must be placed on
the m,. In particular, the initial consumption plan will be fulfilled if and only if mi =
(mO)i.
42 The variable
qj equals the marginal cost of Zi.
250 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

aQ d aQ (A11)
aH di a(Al
In the present context,

Q UkZGj - ke-rijT,8, + Xe-riWiGi,

OHi

aQ = e-ri, (A12)

aHi
d aQ + Xe-rira,
di aHe +
Consequently,

-
Gi Wi + ( eri] jr(r Ii + bi) (A13)
which is the continuous time analogue of equation (13).

C. Wage Effects

To obtain the wage elasticities of medical care and the time spent producing
health, three equations must be partially differentiated with respect to the wage.
These equations are the gross investment production function and the two first-
order conditions for cost minimization:
I(M, TH; E) = Mg(t; E) - (H + 8)H,
W - g'

P - JT(g - tg').

Since I is linear homogenous in M and TH,

0(g - tg') t (g - tg')
aM aTH
ag' 1 a(g- tg')
aTH t aTH
(g - tg')g'
I{ [ (g - tg') ] 0TH}
Therefore, the following relationships hold:
0(g - tg') t(g - tg')g'
am Iop
ag' 1 (g tg')g'
aTH0TH ~~~~~~~~
~(A
t IGp
14)
0(g - tg') (g - tg')g'
aTH Iqp
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 25 1

Carrying out the differentiation, one gets

gdTH+ g t' dM H(H +8)F ( dit 1

dW dW k dW WI
dzt (Og' dTH Og' dM )
1 g, -Kr
J + ~
dW OTHdW OM dW
dn -a(g- tg') dTH 0(g-tg') dM
O (g tg') d + iL - +d dM]
dW TH dW am dW
Using the cost-minimization conditions and (A14) and rearranging terms, one
has
dt dfTH dM IAn
dW dW dW W
da 1 dTH dM
IoP ---P + P I-(P, (A1S)
dW t dW dW W
dir dTH dM
Ip ^ --t?
+ W -tW O.
dW dW dW
Since (A15) is a system of three equations in three unknowns-dTH/dW,
dM/ldWV,and da,/dW-Cramer's rule can be applied to solve for, say, dM/dW:

I t
IF, + W + -
W

MoP- ()P +I GW p

lop + W -0
dM
dW
k,+ W + P

I(; - I_ p + P
P t -t
I(;p + W tW

The determinant in the denominator reduces to (oIj :r2l)/THM. The de-

terminant in the numerator is
16p P
(ImroPTHM
+ Ihe - M27
THM w
Therefore,
dM THM ( ePM 0
dW I-r 6p+ WTH)
2 52 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

In elasticity notation, this becomes

emw (1 - Kop.
K)c + (A16)
Along similar lines, one easily shows that
eTHW = (1 -K) (- -p). (A17)

D. The Role of Human Capital

To convert the change in productivity due to a shift in human capital into a

change in average or marginal cost, let the percentage changes in the marginal
products of medical care and own time for a one-unit change in human capital
be given by
a(g-tg') 1 gg tgg'
aE 9-g tg' g -tg'
&g' 1 At

&E g
If a shift in human capital were "factor neutral," the percentage changes in
these two marginal products would be equal:
gg -

^- g tg '
or
Al =
g g rH. (A18)
The average cost of gross investment in health is defined as
a (PM + WTH)IF - (P + Wt)g'1.
Given factor neutrality,

dE_ g-rH (A19)

dE 71
This coincides with the percentage change in marginal cost, since
T =P(g -tg)

and
A A
d~~t
1 gg -tg g A

dE ir ( g-tg'-) =-= =-g =-rH. (A20)

Part B of Section IV outlines a derivation of the human capital parameter in
the demand curve for medical care but does not give a rigorous proof. Taking
the total derivative of E in the gross investment function, one computes this
parameter thus:
d 1 M (g
- tg) M + THg' TH + rH
dE I I I
A A A A

Since M = TH and H - I, the last equation can be rewritten as

CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 253

H -M + rH.

Solving for M and noting that H rHE, one gets

M = rH(,- 1). (A21)

Appendix B

Glossary of Mathematical Terms

n .. . Total length of life

? ...... Age
Ho .. . Inherited stock of health
Hi .. . Stock of health in period i
Hmin .. . Death stock
0i .. . Service flow per unit stock or number of healthy days per unit
stock
hi .. . Total number of healthy days in period i
Zi .. . Consumption of an aggregate commodity in period i
Ii .. . Gross investment in health
.i *- ------... Rate of depreciation
Mi .Medical care
THi .. . Time input in gross investment function
Xi .. . Goods input in the production of Z.
T . Time input in the production of Zi
E, .. . Stock of human capital
g-tig' .Marginal product of medical care in the gross investment
production function
g' .Marginal product of time
Pi .. . Price of medical care
Vi .. . Price of Xi
Wi .. . Wage rate
AO .. . Initial assets
r .Rate of interest
TWi ..... Hours of work
TLi .. . Sick time
Q .. . Constant length of the period
R .. . Full wealth
Gi .. . Marginal product of health capital
Uhi .. . Marginal utility of healthy days
X ..... Marginal utility of wealth
.i *--- -- - Marginal cost of gross investment in health
Eli. . . Percentage rate of change of marginal cost
y . . Monetary rate of return on an investment in health or
marginal efficiency of health capital
ai .. . Psychic rate of return on an investment in health
v . . . A tilde over a variable denotes a percentage time derivative
si .. . Share of depreciation in the cost of health capital
E . Elasticity of the MEC schedule
K .. . Fraction of the total cost of gross investment accounted for
by time
.p Elasticity of substitution betwen medical care and own time in
the production of gross investment
2 54 JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

eiiw .......... Elasticity of H with regard to W

eiw w .......... Elasticity of M with regard to W
A. A circumflex over a variable denotes a percentage change per
unit change in E
rH * . -----. Percentage change in gross investment for a one unit change
in E
Ci ........... Total cost of gross investment in health in period i
C1i ........... Total cost of Zj
m, ........... Weight attached to total utility in period i
q . Marginal cost of Zi

References

Adelman. Irma. "An Econometric Analysis of Population Growth." A.E.R. 53

(June 1963): 314-49.
Arrow, Kenneth J. "Optimal Capital Policy with Irreversible Investment." In
Value, Capital and Growth: Papers in Honour of Sir John Hicks, edited by
J. N. Wolfe. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1968.
Auster, Richard D.; Leveson, Irving; and Sarachek, Deborah. "The Production
of Health: An Exploratory Study." J. Human Resources 4 (Fall 1969):
411-36.
Becker, Gary S. Human Capital. New York: Columbia Univ. Press (for Nat.
Bur. Econ. Res.), 1964.
"A Theory of the Allocation of Time." Econ. J. 75 (September 1965):
493-5 17.
. Human Capital and the Personal Distribution of Income: An Analytical
Approach. W. S. Woytinsky Lecture no. 1. Ann Arbor: Univ. Michigan, 1967.
Becker, Gary S., and Michael, Robert T. "On the Theory of Consumer De-
mand." Unpublished paper. 1970.
Ben-Porath, Yoram. "The Production of Human Capital and the Life Cycle
of Earnings."J.P.E. 75 (August 1967): 353-67.
Eisner. Robert. and Strotz, Robert H. "Determinants of Business Investment."
In Im pacts of Monetary Policy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall (for
Commission on Money and Credit), 1963.
Fuchs, Victor R. "Some Economic Aspects of Mortality in the United States."
Mimeographed. New York: Nat. Bur. Econ. Res., 1965.
- . "The Contribution of Health Services to the American Economy.'
Milbank Menorial Fund Q. 44 (October 1966): 65-102.
Ghez. Gilbert R. 'A Theory of Life Cycle Consumption." Ph.D. dissertation,
Columbia Univ., 1970.
Gould, John P. "Adjustment Costs in the Theory of Investment in the Firm."
Rev. Econ. Studies 25 (January 1968): 47-55.
Grossman, Michael. "The Demand for Health: A Theoretical and Empirical
Investigation." Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia Univ., 1970.
Lancaster. Kelvin J. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory." J.P.E. 74 (April
1966): 132-57.
Larmore, Mary Lou. "An Inquiry into an Econometric Production Function
for Health in the United States.'" Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern Univ.,
1967.
Michael, Robert T. "The Effect of Education on Efficiency in Consumption."
Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia Univ., 1969; to be published by Nat. Bur.
Econ. Res.
CONCEPT OF HEALTH CAPITAL 2 55

Mushkin, Selma J. "Health as an Investment." J.P.E. 70, no. 2, supply.(Octo-

ber 1962): 129-57.
Muth, Richard. "Household Production and Consumer Demand Functions."
Econometrica 34 (July 1966): 699-708.
Nerlove, Marc, and Arrow, Kenneth J. "Optimal Advertising Policy under
Dynamic Conditions." Economica 29 (May 1962): 129-42.
Newhouse, Joseph P. "Toward a Rational Allocation of Resources in Medical
Care." Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard Univ., 1968.
Phelps, Charles E. "The Demand for Health Insurance: Theory and Empirical
Results." Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Chicago (in preparation).
Strotz, Robert H. "Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximiza-
tion." Rev. Econ. Studies 23 (1955-56): 165-180.