Workers' preferences among company-provided health insurance plans
Data from four plants of a single company are used to examine differences in health plan selection in 1989 among employees offered a choice of plans. A 10% increase in the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) plan premium reduced the fraction choosing that plan by 4-9 percentage points, and a doubling of the deductible reduced the plan's market share by 3-4 percentage points. Most workers rejecting such a plan chose the high-premium prepaid plans, which offer the lowest cost-sharing provisions. On the other hand, attaching a modest deductible to prepaid plans reduced their market share by 3-4 percentage points and increased participation in the traditional FFS plan, which requires a relatively high premium but low cost-sharing. The authors also find that increases in real salaries and in the age of the work force boosted employee choice of the traditional FFS plan. (Abstract courtesy JSTOR.)
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Volume (Year): 48 (1994)
Issue (Month): 1 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Fax: 607-255-8016|
Web page: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/ilrreview/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: 381 Ives East, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-3901|
Web: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/ilrreview/ Email:
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ilr:articl:v:48:y:1994:i:1:p:141-152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ILR Review)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.