|Kesternich, Iris; Heiss, Florian; McFadden, Daniel; Winter, Joachim (October 2012): Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D. Discussion Papers in Economics 2012-25|
In recent years, consumer choice has become an important element of public policy. One reason is that consumers differ in their tastes and needs, which they can express most easily through their own choices. Elements that strengthen consumer choice feature prominently in the design of public insurance markets, for instance in the United States in the recent introduction of prescription drug coverage for older individuals via Medicare Part D. For policy makers who design such a market, an important practical question in the design phase of such a new program is how to deduce enrollment and plan selection preferences prior to its introduction. In this paper, we investigate whether hypothetical choice experiments can serve as a tool in this process. We combine data from hypothetical and real plan choices, elicited around the time of the introduction of Medicare Part D. We first analyze how well the hypothetical choice data predict willingness to pay and market shares at the aggregate level. We then analyze predictions at the individual level, in particular how insurance demand varies with observable characteristics. We also explore whether the extent of adverse selection can be predicted using hypothetical choice data alone.
|Item Type:||Paper (Discussion Paper)|
|Keywords:||Medicare, health insurance demand, hypothetical choice experiments|
Economics > Munich Discussion Papers in Economics
Economics > Chairs > Chair of Empirical Economics
|Subjects:||300 Social sciences > 300 Social sciences, sociology and anthropology|
300 Social sciences > 330 Economics
|JEL Classification:||I11, C25, D12, H51, I18|
|Deposited On:||17. Oct 2012 13:37|
|Last Modified:||30. Apr 2016 03:23|
Alfnes, F., A. G Gutterson, G. Steine and K. Kolstad (2006): Consumers’ willingness to pay for the color of salmon: A choice experiment with real economic incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88, 1050–1061.
Abaluck, J. T. and J. Gruber (2011): Choice inconsistencies among the elderly: Evidence from plan choice in the Medicare Part D program. American Economic Review, 101, 1180–1210.
Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Learner, R. Radner and H. Schuman (1993): Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601–4614.
Balistreri, E., G. McClelland, G. Poe and W. Schulze (2001): Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environmental and Resource Economics, 18, 275–292.
Berry, S. (1994): Estimating discrete-choice models of product differentiation. Rand Journal of Economics, 25, 242–262.
Blackburn, M., G. W. Harrison, and E. E. Rutström (1994): Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 1084–1088.
Bohm, P. (2008): Field test elicitations of demand for public goods. In C. R. Plott and V. L. Smith (eds.): Handbook of Experimental Economic Results, Volume 1, 736–741. Elsevier.
Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, K. M. Martin, and J. L. Wright (1996): Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics, 72, 80–99.
Chang, J. B., J. L. Lusk and F. B. Norwood, (2009): How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91, 518–534.
Duggan, M., P. Healy, and F. Scott-Morton (2008): Providing prescription drug coverage to the elderly: America’s experiment with Medicare Part D. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22:4 69–92.
Frakt, A. B. and S. D. Pizer (2010): Beneficiary price sensitivity in the Medicare prescription drug plan market. Health Economics, 19(1), 88–100.
Harrison, G. W. and J. A. List (2004): Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 62, 1009–1055.
Heiss, F., D. McFadden, and J. Winter (2006): Who failed to enroll in Medicare Part D, and why? Early results. Health Affairs, 25, 344–354.
Heiss, F., D. McFadden, and J. Winter (2009): Regulation of private health insurance markets: Lessons from enrollment, plan type choice, and adverse selection in Medicare Part D. NBER Working Paper No.15392.
Heiss, F., D. McFadden, and J. Winter (2011): The demand for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage: Evidence from four waves of the Retirement Perspectives Survey. In: D. A. Wise, ed., Explorations in the Economics of Aging, 159–182. Chicago University Press.
Heiss, F., A. Leive, D. McFadden, and J. Winter (2012): Plan selection in Medicare Part D: Evidence from administrative data. Unpublished manuscript.
Kling, J. R., S Mullainathan, E. Shafir, L. Vermeulen and M. V. Wrobel, (2012): Comparison friction: Experimental evidence from Medicare drug plans. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 199–235.
List, J.A., P. Sinha, and M.H. Taylor (2006): Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 6, 1–37.
Louviere, J., D. Hensher, and J. Swait (2000): Stated Choices Methods. Cambridge University Press.
Lucarelli, C., J. Prince and K. Simon (2008): The welfare impact of reducing choice in Medicare Part D: A comparison of two regulation strategies. NBER Working Paper No. 14296.
Lusk, J. L. and T. C. Schroeder (2004): Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86, 467–482.
Madden, J., A. Graves, F. Zhang, A. Adams, B. Briesacher, D. Ross-Degnan, J. Gurwitz, M. Pierre-Jacques, D. Safran, G. Adler and S. Soumerai (2008): Cost related medication nonadherence and spending on basic needs following implementation of Medicare Part D, Journal of the American Medical Association, 299, 1922–1928.
Manski, C. F. (1999): Analysis of choice expectations in incomplete scenarios. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 49–65.
McFadden, D. (1976): The revealed preferences of a government bureaucracy: Empirical evidence. Bell Journal of Economics, 7(1), 55-72.
McFadden, D. (2001): Economic choices. American Economic Review, 91, 351–378.
McFadden, D. and Train, K. (2000): Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15, 447-470.
McFadden, D., J. Winter, and F. Heiss (2008): Consumer-directed health care: Can consumers look after themselves? Swiss Journal of Economics, 144, 285–307.
Mitchell, R. and R. Carson (1989): Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. RFF Press, Washington, D.C.
Morikawa, T. (1989): Incorporating Stated Preference Data in Travel Demand Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Murphy, J. J., P. G. Allen, T. H. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead (2005): A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 30, 313–325.
Neuman, P., M. Strollo, S. Guterman, W. Rogers, A. Li, A. Rodday, and D. Safran (2007): Medicare prescription drug benefit progress report: Findings from a 2006 national survey of seniors. Health Affairs, 26, 630–643.
Rothschild, M., and Stiglitz, J. (1976): Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: an essay on the economics of imperfect information. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(4), 630-649.
Street, D.J. and L. Burgess (2007): The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Train, K. (2003): Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press.
Winter, J., R. Balza, F. Caro, B.-H. Jun, F. Heiss, R. Matzkin, and D. McFadden (2006): Medicare prescription drug coverage: Consumer information and preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 7929–7934.
Available Versions of this Item
- Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D. (deposited 17. Oct 2012 13:37) [Currently Displayed]