It requires a more in-depth elucidation. Digital Health, for example, relies a lot on “nudges” and “re-defining” health-seeking behaviour. We, however, know, that there is a direct causal correlation of income levels with the health-seeking behaviour. Yet, that causation associability is the cause of concern. Everyone who falls ill will require healthcare as a service.
Behavioural economics, I think should focus on making the process smoother for accessibility.
Behavioral economics arose from the behavioral decision-making tradition in psychology that sought to identify deviations from normative (“rational”) standards of decision-making. These fun, “predictably irrational” systematic anomalies documented in effects such as anchoring, the endowment effect, the compromise effect, and many others have captured the imagination of businesspeople, policymakers, and the public. In part, the attraction was (and is) that through subtle changes in how information is presented these effects could be used to induce large behavioral changes.
Yet, through a bit of bait-and-switch, “boring” old (but important) information design—and other interventions (like sending people text reminders)—have been sold under the fun and exciting label of behavioral economics. Indeed, as I just noted, the term is now used to describe any intervention intended to influence behavior—rendering it essentially meaningless.