IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v34y1996i4p662-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monopoly, Monopsony and Contestability in Health Insurance: A Study of Blue Cross Plans

Author

Listed:
  • Foreman, Stephen Earl
  • Wilson, John Anderson
  • Scheffler, Richard M

Abstract

As dominant sellers of health insurance and buyers of health services, Blue Cross and Blue Shield have potential monopoly and monopsony power. The credible threat of entry resulting from the increased competitiveness of these markets in the 1980s may have produced competitive outcomes--reduced prices, improved quality, and efficient cost structures--even in a concentrated market. The authors find the plans used economies of scale and monopsony power to reduce administrative costs, provide payments and consumer premiums. Their findings suggest that steps to enhance the contestability of health markets may be a better response than regulation. Copyright 1996 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Foreman, Stephen Earl & Wilson, John Anderson & Scheffler, Richard M, 1996. "Monopoly, Monopsony and Contestability in Health Insurance: A Study of Blue Cross Plans," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(4), pages 662-677, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:34:y:1996:i:4:p:662-77
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below 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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. R. Halbersma & M. Mikkers & E. Motchenkova & I. Seinen, 2011. "Market structure and hospital–insurer bargaining in the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(6), pages 589-603, December.
    2. Leo Turcotte & John Robst & Solomon Polachek, 2006. "Medical interventions among pregnant women in fee-for-service and managed care insurance: a propensity score analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(13), pages 1513-1525.
    3. Gaynor, Martin & Vogt, William B., 2000. "Antitrust and competition in health care markets," Handbook of Health Economics, in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 27, pages 1405-1487, Elsevier.
    4. Donald Alexander & Jon Neill, 2015. "The Impact of Market Share on Health Insurance Premiums," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 43(4), pages 477-488, December.
    5. Elizabeth L. Munnich & Michael R. Richards, 2020. "Treatment flows after outsourcing public insurance provision: Evidence from Florida Medicaid," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1343-1363, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:34:y:1996:i:4:p:662-77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.