Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1313-1324

  Kesternich, Iris ^a   Heiss, Florian ^b   McFadden, Daniel ^c   Winter, Joachim ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Health insurance demand; Hypothetical choice experiments; Medicare

Indexed keywords

PRESCRIPTION DRUG;

DRUG PRESCRIBING; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH POLICY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; INSURANCE SYSTEM; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; CONSUMER ADVOCACY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; DRUG COST; DRUG USE; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH INSURANCE ELIGIBILITY; HUMAN; MEDICARE; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREDICTION; SOCIAL STATUS; STATISTICAL MODEL; AGED; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; INSURANCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY;

UNITED STATES;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HUMANS; INSURANCE COVERAGE; MALE; MEDICARE PART D; MIDDLE AGED; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84888868190     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: 18791646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.11.006     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alfnes F., Gutterson A.G., Steine G., Kolstad K. Consumers' willingness to pay for the color of salmon: a choice experiment with real economic incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2006, 88:1050-1061.
2. Abaluck J.T., Gruber J. Choice inconsistencies among the elderly: evidence from plan choice in the Medicare Part D program. American Economic Review 2011, 101:1180-1210.
3. Arrow K., Solow R., Portney P.R., Learner E.E., Radner R., Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 1993, 58:4601-4614.
4. Balistreri E., McClelland G., Poe G., Schulze W. Can hypothetical questions reveal true values? A laboratory comparison of dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent values with auction values. Environmental and Resource Economics 2001, 18:275-292.
5. Berry S. Estimating discrete-choice models of product differentiation. Rand Journal of Economics 1994, 25:242-262.
6. Blackburn M., Harrison G.W., Rutström E.E. Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1994, 76:1084-1088.
7. Bohm P. Field test elicitations of demand for public goods. Handbook of Experimental Economic Results 2008, vol. 1:736-741. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
8. Carson R.T., Flores N.E., Martin K.M., Wright J.L. Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods. Land Economics 1996, 72:80-99.
9. Chang J.B., Lusk J.L., Norwood F.B. How closely do hypothetical surveys and laboratory experiments predict field behavior?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 91:518-534.
10. Duggan M., Healy P., Scott-Morton F. Providing prescription drug coverage to the elderly: America's experiment with Medicare Part D. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2008, 22(4):69-92.
11. Frakt A.B., Pizer S.D. Beneficiary price sensitivity in the Medicare prescription drug plan market. Health Economics 2010, 19(1):88-100.
12. Harrison G.W., List J.A. Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 2004, 62:1009-1055.
13. Heiss F., McFadden D., Winter J. Who failed to enroll in Medicare Part D, and why? Early results. Health Affairs 2006, 25:344-354.
14. Heiss, F., McFadden, D., Winter, J., 2009. Regulation of Private Health Insurance Markets: Lessons from Enrollment, Plan Type Choice, and Adverse Selection in Medicare Part D. NBER Working Paper No. 15392.
15. Heiss F., McFadden D., Winter J. The demand for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage: evidence from four waves of the retirement perspectives survey. Explorations in the Economics of Aging 2011, 159-182. Chicago University Press. D.A. Wise (Ed.).
16. Heiss, F., Leive, A., McFadden, D., Winter, J., 2012. Plan Selection in Medicare Part D: Evidence from Administrative Data. NBER Working Paper No. 18166.
17. Kesternich, I., Heiss, F., McFadden, D., Winter, J., 2012. Suit the Action to the Word, the Word to the Action: Hypothetical Choices and Real Decisions in Medicare Part D. Discussion Paper No. 2012-25, Department of Economics, University of Munich.
18. Kling J.R., Mullainathan S., Shafir E., Vermeulen L., Wrobel M.V. Comparison friction: experimental evidence from Medicare drug plans. Quarterly Journal of Economics 2012, 127:199-235.
19. List J.A., Sinha P., Taylor M.H. Using choice experiments to value non-market goods and services. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy 2006, 6:1-37.
20. Louviere J., Hensher D., Swait J. Stated Choices Methods 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
21. Lucarelli C., Prince J., Simon K. The welfare impact of reducing choice in Medicare Part D: a comparison of two regulation strategies. International Economic Review 2012, 53:1155-1177.
22. Lusk J.L., Schroeder T.C. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2004, 86:467-482.
23. Madden J., Graves A., Zhang F., Adams A., Briesacher B., Ross-Degnan D., Gurwitz J., Pierre-Jacques M., Safran D., Adler G., Soumerai S. Cost related medication nonadherence and spending on basic needs following implementation of Medicare Part D. Journal of the American Medical Association 2008, 299:1922-1928.
24. Manski C.F. Analysis of choice expectations in incomplete scenarios. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1999, 19:49-65.
25. McFadden D. The revealed preferences of a government bureaucracy: empirical evidence. Bell Journal of Economics 1976, 7(1):55-72.
26. McFadden D. Economic choices. American Economic Review 2001, 91:351-378.
27. McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2000, 15:447-470.
28. McFadden D., Winter J., Heiss F. Consumer-directed health care: can consumers look after themselves?. Swiss Journal of Economics 2008, 144:285-307.
29. Mitchell R., Carson R. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method 1989, RFF Press, Washington, DC.
30. Morikawa, T., 1989. Incorporating Stated Preference Data in Travel Demand Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
31. Murphy, J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens, T.H., Weatherhead, D., 2003. An empirical study of hypothetical bias in voluntary contribution contingent valuation: does cheap talk matter? University of Massachusetts. Working Paper No. 789000.
32. Murphy J.J., Allen P.G., Stevens T.H., Weatherhead D. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 30:313-325.
33. Neuman P., Strollo M., Guterman S., Rogers W., Li A., Rodday A., Safran D. Medicare prescription drug benefit progress report: findings from a 2006 national survey of seniors. Health Affairs 2007, 26:630-643.
34. Rothschild M., Stiglitz J. Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: an essay on the economics of imperfect information. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1976, 90:630-649.
35. Street D.J., Burgess L. The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments: Theory and Methods 2007, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Chicago and London.
36. Train K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
37. Winter J., Balza R., Caro F., Jun B.-H., Heiss F., Matzkin R., McFadden D. Medicare prescription drug coverage: consumer information and preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2006, 103:7929-7934.