Beyond Healthcare Costs: OECD Study Quantifies Miscarriage Risk Reduction

A new OECD study finds that people are willing to pay significant amounts to reduce miscarriage risk, highlighting the hidden emotional and social costs often ignored in policy decisions. The findings provide governments with stronger evidence to justify stricter regulations on harmful chemicals and improve public health protections.

A quiet shift is reshaping how governments measure the real cost of environmental risks, and at its centre is an issue rarely discussed in economic terms: miscarriage. A new study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development under its Environment Directorate, part of the global SWACHE research initiative, is bringing this sensitive topic into policy conversations by estimating how much people value reducing the risk of pregnancy loss.

Miscarriage affects around 15 percent of pregnancies worldwide, yet it has largely been absent from cost-benefit analyses used to design environmental and health regulations. Traditional economic models focus on hospital costs or lost income, but these fail to capture the emotional and psychological toll of losing a pregnancy. This study attempts to fill that gap by asking a simple but powerful question: how much are people willing to pay to reduce this risk?

Asking People What It’s Worth

To find answers, researchers surveyed more than 10,000 people across nine countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Korea. Participants were selected from those planning to have children in the near future, making the topic personally relevant.

Each person was presented with a realistic scenario. By switching to safer household products such as cleaning items, cosmetics and clothing that contain fewer harmful chemicals, they could reduce their risk of miscarriage. However, these safer products would cost more. Participants were then asked whether they would be willing to pay specific amounts over 15 months for this risk reduction.

The survey was carefully designed to ensure people understood what they were deciding. It explained miscarriage in clear terms, used simple visuals to show risk levels, and guided respondents through the choices step by step.

What the Numbers Reveal

The results are striking. On average, people said they would be willing to pay more than 13,000 dollars over 15 months for a modest reduction in miscarriage risk. When economists convert this into a standard measure, it suggests that preventing one statistical case of miscarriage is valued at about 448,000 dollars on average.

These numbers do not mean that a miscarriage has a literal price tag. Instead, they help policymakers understand how much society as a whole values reducing risk. It is similar to how economists estimate the value of reducing risks of death or injury.

The responses also showed clear patterns. People were willing to pay more when the risk reduction was larger and less when the cost increased. Higher-income individuals tended to pay slightly more, but concern about miscarriage risk was widespread across all income groups. Those who had experienced miscarriage themselves, or knew someone who had, placed even higher value on reducing the risk.

Big Differences Across Countries

One of the most interesting findings is how much values differ between countries. Estimates ranged from just over 300,000 dollars in some European countries to nearly 600,000 dollars in places like the United States and Italy.

Surprisingly, these differences are not strongly linked to income levels. Instead, they likely reflect cultural attitudes, healthcare systems, and social factors such as how people view pregnancy and family life. This means policymakers cannot simply copy numbers from one country to another. Local context matters.

At the same time, the study used the same method everywhere, making it one of the first efforts to compare values across countries in a consistent way.

Why This Matters for Policy

For governments, these findings are more than just numbers. They provide a new tool for making better decisions about environmental and health regulations. When authorities consider limiting harmful chemicals, they often weigh the cost to businesses against the benefits to society. Until now, those benefits have been underestimated because the risk was not properly valued.

By showing that people place significant value on reducing this risk, the study strengthens the case for stricter regulations and safer products. It also highlights the importance of looking beyond visible costs and considering the full human impact of health risks.

More broadly, the research signals a change in economic thinking. It shows that policies should account not only for financial losses but also for emotional and quality-of-life impacts. In doing so, it brings a deeply personal issue into the public policy space, encouraging governments to take a more complete view of well-being.

In the end, the message is clear: the cost of environmental risks is higher than it appears, and understanding what people truly value can lead to better, more human-centred decisions.