IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Inattention and Switching Costs as Sources of Inertia in Medicare Part D

Listed author(s):
  • Florian Heiss
  • Daniel McFadden
  • Joachim Winter
  • Amelie Wuppermann
  • Bo Zhou

The trend towards giving consumers choice about their health plans has invited research on how good they actually are at making these decisions. The introduction of Medicare Part D is an important example. Initial plan choices in this market were generally far from optimal. In this paper, we focus on plan choice in the years after initial enrollment. Due to changes in plan supply, consumer health status, and prescription drug needs, consumers' optimal plans change over time. However, in Medicare Part D only about 10% of consumers switch plans every year, and on average, plan choices worsen for those who do not switch. We develop a two-stage panel data model of plan choice whose stages correspond to two separate reasons for inertia: inattention and switching costs. The model allows for unobserved heterogeneity that is correlated across the two decision stages. We estimate the model using administrative data on Medicare Part D claims from 2007 to 2010. We find that consumers are more likely to pay attention to plan choice if overspending in the last year is more salient and if their old plan gets worse, for instance due to premium increases. Moreover, conditional on attention there are significant switching costs. Separating the two stages of the switching decision is thus important when designing interventions that improve consumers' plan choice.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22765.pdf
Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.

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.

Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 22765.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Oct 2016
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:22765
Note: AG HC HE
Contact details of provider: Postal:
National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.

Phone: 617-868-3900
Web page: http://www.nber.org
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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.:

as
in new window


  1. repec:mpr:mprres:7375 is not listed on IDEAS
  2. Benjamin R. Handel & Jonathan T. Kolstad & Johannes Spinnewijn, 2015. "Information Frictions and Adverse Selection: Policy Interventions in Health Insurance Markets," CESifo Working Paper Series 5623, CESifo Group Munich.
  3. Francesco Decarolis, 2015. "Medicare Part D: Are Insurers Gaming the Low Income Subsidy Design?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1547-1580, April.
  4. Tibor Besedeš & Cary Deck & Sudipta Sarangi & Mikhael Shor, 2015. "Reducing Choice Overload without Reducing Choices," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(4), pages 793-802, October.
  5. John Goodman, 2006. "Consumer Directed Health Care," NFI Policy Briefs 2006-PB-20, Indiana State University, Scott College of Business, Networks Financial Institute.
  6. 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.
  7. Heiss, Florian & Winschel, Viktor, 2008. "Likelihood approximation by numerical integration on sparse grids," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 62-80, May.
  8. 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.
  9. Keith M. Marzilli Ericson, 2014. "Consumer Inertia and Firm Pricing in the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Insurance Exchange," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 38-64, February.
  10. Victor Stango & Jonathan Zinman, 2014. "Limited and Varying Consumer Attention: Evidence from Shocks to the Salience of Bank Overdraft Fees," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 27(4), pages 990-1030.
  11. repec:tpr:restat:v:97:y:2015:i:5:p:793-802 is not listed on IDEAS
  12. 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.
  13. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
  14. Frank, Richard G. & Lamiraud, Karine, 2009. "Choice, price competition and complexity in markets for health insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 550-562, August.
  15. Benjamin R. Handel & Jonathan T. Kolstad & Johannes Spinnewijn, 2015. "Information Frictions and Adverse Selection: Policy Interventions in Health Insurance Markets," CEP Discussion Papers dp1390, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  16. Jeffrey R. Kling & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Lee C. Vermeulen & Marian V. Wrobel, 2012. "Comparison Friction: Experimental Evidence from Medicare Drug Plans," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 127(1), pages 199-235.
  17. 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.
  18. Jonathan D. Ketcham & Claudio Lucarelli & Eugenio J. Miravete & M. Christopher Roebuck, 2012. "Sinking, Swimming, or Learning to Swim in Medicare Part D," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2639-2673, October.
  19. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Paul Schrimpf, 2015. "The Response of Drug Expenditure to Nonlinear Contract Design: Evidence from Medicare Part D," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 130(2), pages 841-899.
  20. Francesco Decarolis & Maria Polyakova & Stephen P. Ryan, 2015. "The Welfare Effects of Supply-Side Regulations in Medicare Part D," NBER Working Papers 21298, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  21. Mark Duggan & Patrick Healy & Fiona Scott Morton, 2008. "Providing Prescription Drug Coverage to the Elderly: America's Experiment with Medicare Part D," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(4), pages 69-92, Fall.
  22. Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel L. & Winter, Joachim, 2006. "Who failed to enroll in Medicare Part D, and why? Early results," Munich Reprints in Economics 19427, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  23. Christian Helmers & Pramila Krishnan & Manasa Patnam, 2015. "Attention and Saliency on the Internet: Evidence from an Online Recommendation System," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1563, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  24. Benjamin R. Handel & Jonathan T. Kolstad & Johannes Spinnewijn, 2015. "Information frictions and adverse selection: policyinterventions in health insurance markets," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65011, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  25. 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.
  26. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
  27. Grubb, Michael D., 2012. "Dynamic nonlinear pricing: Biased expectations, inattention, and bill shock," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 287-290.
  28. Benjamin R. Handel & Jonathan T. Kolstad & Johannes Spinnewijn, 2015. "Information Frictions and Adverse Selection: Policy Interventions in Health Insurance Markets," NBER Working Papers 21759, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  29. Kate Ho & Joseph Hogan & Fiona Scott Morton, 2015. "The Impact of Consumer Inattention on Insurer Pricing in the Medicare Part D Program," NBER Working Papers 21028, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  30. Elisabeth Honka, 2014. "Quantifying search and switching costs in the US auto insurance industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(4), pages 847-884, December.
  31. Ali Hortaçsu & Seyed Ali Madanizadeh & Steven L. Puller, 2015. "Power to Choose? An Analysis of Consumer Inertia in the Residential Electricity Market," NBER Working Papers 20988, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  32. 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.
  33. Handel, Benjamin R. & Kolstad, Jonathan & Spinnewijn, Johannes, 2015. "Information Frictions and Adverse Selection: Policy Interventions in Health Insurance Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 10953, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:22765. 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: ()

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.