Prior research on health insurance expansions has ignored the content of coverage, yet the nature of coverage offered is likely to affect both take-up by the uninsured and the public policy - relevant consequences of the expansion. This paper uses the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, the Survey of Program Dynamics, and the Rand Health Insurance Experiment to show that uninsured people are likely to value certain types of coverage more than others. Using a simulation model of the value of coverage expansions, I show that front-end coverage with a low-benefit maximum is likely to be perceived as more valuable than catastrophic coverage by low-income uninsured people. Some high-deductible coverage may make uninsured people subjectively worse off.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: