Can I pay for your suffering?

Asking people how much money they would need to endure pain again may provide a more accurate and consistent way to measure discomfort than the familiar 1-to-10 scale, according to new research led by Lancaster University in England.

The study, published in Social Science & Medicine, found that a monetary-based approach allowed clearer distinctions between pain levels, detected the effects of pain relief more consistently, and made comparisons across individuals more meaningful than conventional self-reported scales.

Researchers tested the idea in a series of experiments involving more than 300 adults aged 18 to 60. Participants were exposed to mild painful stimuli and then asked either to rate their discomfort numerically or to specify how much money they would accept to repeat the experience. In one experiment, some participants received a placebo cream while others were given an active pain reliever, allowing scientists to test whether either method could capture differences in pain reduction.

The monetary method outperformed traditional measures in all three areas, the researchers said.

“We’ve all been asked to rate our pain from one to ten — but one person’s three might be another’s five, and those numbers can shift with experience,” said Professor Carlos Alós-Ferrer of Lancaster University Management School, who led the research. “Our research proposes a better way: turning pain into money — not to commodify suffering, but to create a scale we can all share.”

Pain measurement is critical for both clinical care and research, but widely used numerical or visual scales have long been criticized for their subjectivity. Misinterpretation of pain scores can lead to poor pain management, reduced quality of life, and higher burdens on health systems. In the United States alone, more than $600 billion is spent annually treating pain — more than the combined costs of heart disease and diabetes.

The authors say the new approach is not meant to replace current methods but to complement them, offering researchers and clinicians a potentially more precise tool for evaluating the effectiveness of treatments. They suggest that further studies could expand the technique’s use in clinical trials and patient care.