IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/emetrp/v92y2024i3p881-911.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Endogenous Information and Simplifying Insurance Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Zach Y. Brown
  • Jihye Jeon

Abstract

In markets with complicated products, individuals may choose how much time and effort to spend understanding and comparing alternatives. Focusing on insurance choice, we find evidence consistent with individuals acquiring more information when there are larger consequences from making an uninformed choice. Building on the rational inattention literature, we develop and estimate a parsimonious demand model in which individuals choose how much to research difficult‐to‐observe characteristics. We use our estimates to evaluate policies that simplify choice. Reducing the number of plans can raise welfare through improved choice as well as savings in information costs. Capping out‐of‐pocket costs generates larger welfare gains than standard models. The empirical model can be applied to other settings to examine the regulation of complex products.

Suggested Citation

  • Zach Y. Brown & Jihye Jeon, 2024. "Endogenous Information and Simplifying Insurance Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 92(3), pages 881-911, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:emetrp:v:92:y:2024:i:3:p:881-911
    DOI: 10.3982/ECTA18555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA18555
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3982/ECTA18555?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kate Ho & Joseph Hogan & Fiona Scott Morton, 2017. "The impact of consumer inattention on insurer pricing in the Medicare Part D program," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 48(4), pages 877-905, December.
    2. Train, Kenneth, 2015. "Welfare calculations in discrete choice models when anticipated and experienced attributes differ: A guide with examples," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 15-22.
    3. Jason Abaluck & Jonathan Gruber, 2011. "Choice Inconsistencies among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1180-1210, June.
    4. Antonio Cabrales & Olivier Gossner & Roberto Serrano, 2013. "Entropy and the Value of Information for Investors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 360-377, February.
    5. Filip Matêjka & Alisdair McKay, 2015. "Rational Inattention to Discrete Choices: A New Foundation for the Multinomial Logit Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 272-298, January.
    6. Mogens Fosgerau & Emerson Melo & André de Palma & Matthew Shum, 2020. "Discrete Choice And Rational Inattention: A General Equivalence Result," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1569-1589, November.
    7. Jason Abaluck & Jonathan Gruber, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Choice Inconsistencies among the Elderly: Evidence from Prescription Drug Plan Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 377-381, May.
    8. Alfred Galichon, 2022. "On the Representation of the Nested Logit Model," Post-Print hal-03893069, HAL.
    9. Heiss, Florian & Leive, Adam & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Plan selection in Medicare Part D: Evidence from administrative data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1325-1344.
    10. repec:hal:pseose:hal-00812682 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Jonathan D. Ketcham & Claudio Lucarelli & Christopher A. Powers, 2015. "Paying Attention or Paying Too Much in Medicare Part D," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 204-233, January.
    12. M. Kate Bundorf & Jonathan Levin & Neale Mahoney, 2012. "Pricing and Welfare in Health Plan Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3214-3248, December.
    13. Cardell, N. Scott, 1997. "Variance Components Structures for the Extreme-Value and Logistic Distributions with Application to Models of Heterogeneity," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 185-213, April.
    14. Ericson, Keith M. Marzilli & Starc, Amanda, 2016. "How product standardization affects choice: Evidence from the Massachusetts Health Insurance Exchange," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 71-85.
    15. Galichon, Alfred, 2022. "On The Representation Of The Nested Logit Model," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 370-380, April.
    16. Sims, Christopher A., 2003. "Implications of rational inattention," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 665-690, April.
    17. Bartosz Maćkowiak & Filip Matějka & Mirko Wiederholt, 2023. "Rational Inattention: A Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 226-273, March.
    18. Benjamin R. Handel & Jonathan T. Kolstad, 2015. "Health Insurance for "Humans": Information Frictions, Plan Choice, and Consumer Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(8), pages 2449-2500, August.
    19. Maria Polyakova, 2016. "Regulation of Insurance with Adverse Selection and Switching Costs: Evidence from Medicare Part D," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 165-195, July.
    20. Florian Heiss & Daniel McFadden & Joachim Winter & Amelie Wuppermann & Bo Zhou, 2021. "Inattention and Switching Costs as Sources of Inertia in Medicare Part D," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(9), pages 2737-2781, September.
    21. Jason Abaluck & Jonathan Gruber, 2016. "Evolving Choice Inconsistencies in Choice of Prescription Drug Insurance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(8), pages 2145-2184, August.
    22. Alfred Galichon, 2022. "On the Representation of the Nested Logit Model," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03893069, HAL.
    23. Saurabh Bhargava & George Loewenstein & Justin Sydnor, 2017. "Choose to Lose: Health Plan Choices from a Menu with Dominated Option," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(3), pages 1319-1372.
    24. Benjamin R. Handel, 2013. "Adverse Selection and Inertia in Health Insurance Markets: When Nudging Hurts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2643-2682, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sergey Turlo & Matteo Fina & Johannes Kasinger & Arash Laghaie & Thomas Otter, 2025. "Discrete choice in marketing through the lens of rational inattention," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 45-104, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. M. Kate Bundorf & Maria Polyakova & Ming Tai-Seale, 2019. "How do Humans Interact with Algorithms? Experimental Evidence from Health Insurance," NBER Working Papers 25976, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Martin Gaynor & Kate Ho & Robert J. Town, 2015. "The Industrial Organization of Health-Care Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(2), pages 235-284, June.
    3. Drake, Coleman & Ryan, Conor & Dowd, Bryan, 2022. "Sources of inertia in the individual health insurance market," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    4. M. Kate Bundorf & Maria Polyakova & Ming Tai-Seale, 2024. "How Do Consumers Interact with Digital Expert Advice? Experimental Evidence from Health Insurance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 7617-7643, November.
    5. Nathaniel Hendren & Camille Landais & Johannes Spinnewijn, 2021. "Choice in Insurance Markets: A Pigouvian Approach to Social Insurance Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 457-486, August.
    6. Benjamin Handel & Joshua Schwartzstein, 2018. "Frictions or Mental Gaps: What's Behind the Information We (Don't) Use and When Do We Care?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 155-178, Winter.
    7. Florian Heiss & Daniel McFadden & Joachim Winter & Amelie Wuppermann & Bo Zhou, 2016. "Inattention and Switching Costs as Sources of Inertia in Medicare Part D," NBER Working Papers 22765, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Nicholas Tilipman, 2022. "Employer Incentives and Distortions in Health Insurance Design: Implications for Welfare and Costs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(3), pages 998-1037, March.
    9. Trevor Collier & Marlon Williams, 2024. "Employer‐provided health insurance: Are two options too many?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 91(1), pages 118-141, July.
    10. Olivier Darmouni & Dan Zeltzer, 2022. "Horizon effects and adverse selection in health insurance markets," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 800-827, May.
    11. Kaufmann, Cornel & Müller, Tobias & Hefti, Andreas & Boes, Stefan, 2018. "Does personalized information improve health plan choices when individuals are distracted?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 197-214.
    12. Dahl, Gordon B. & Forbes, Silke J., 2023. "Doctor switching costs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    13. Tomas Pedro Sanguinetti, 2019. "How Do Couples Choose Individual Insurance Plans? Evidence from Medicare Part D," 2019 Papers psa1760, Job Market Papers.
    14. Ramsis R. Croes & Frederik T. Schut & Marco Varkevisser, 2025. "Adverse selection and consumer inertia: empirical evidence from the Dutch health insurance market," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(4), pages 641-651, June.
    15. Keane, Michael & Ketcham, Jonathan & Kuminoff, Nicolai & Neal, Timothy, 2021. "Evaluating consumers’ choices of Medicare Part D plans: A study in behavioral welfare economics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 107-140.
    16. Nathan Kettlewell, 2020. "Policy Choice and Product Bundling in a Complicated Health Insurance Market: Do People Get It Right?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 55(2), pages 566-610.
    17. Tamara Bischof & Michael Gerfin & Tobias Mueller, 2021. "Attention Please! Health Plan Choice and (In-)Attention," Diskussionsschriften dp2111, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
    18. Jason Abaluck & Jonathan Gruber, 2016. "Improving the Quality of Choices in Health Insurance Markets," NBER Working Papers 22917, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Genakos, Christos & Roumanias, Costas & Valletti, Tommaso, 2023. "Is having an expert “friend” enough? An analysis of consumer switching behavior in mobile telephony," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 359-372.
    20. Jonathan D. Ketcham & Nicolai V. Kuminoff & Christopher A. Powers, 2016. "Estimating the Heterogeneous Welfare Effects of Choice Architecture: An Application to the Medicare Prescription Drug Insurance Market," NBER Working Papers 22732, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:wly:emetrp:v:92:y:2024:i:3:p:881-911. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.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.