Demand for Health Insurance

A large literature studies demand for health insurance by examining how individuals respond to coverage and how they make insurance choices under uncertainty. Experimental evidence from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment established that insurance generosity substantially affects healthcare utilization, providing early causal evidence on moral hazard and the role of cost sharing in shaping demand (Aron-Dine, Einav, and Finkelstein (2013)). More recent experimental work from the Oregon Medicaid lottery confirms that gaining insurance coverage increases utilization and improves financial security, with more nuanced effects on health outcomes (Finkelstein et al. (2012)). Together, these studies show that insurance coverage meaningfully changes behavior, while also highlighting that observed demand reflects both preferences and the structure of insurance contracts. While moral hazard and utilization responses are central to understanding insurance demand, these mechanisms are well covered elsewhere (see Einav and Finkelstein (2018) for a comprehensive treatment) and are not the primary focus here.

Beyond responses to coverage, a growing body of work documents systematic frictions in health insurance choice. Individuals frequently select plans that are dominated given their realized healthcare needs, suggesting that limited attention, complexity, and misperceptions play an important role in insurance demand (Abaluck and Gruber (2011); Jonathan D. Ketcham et al. (2012); Jonathan D. Ketcham, Kuminoff, and Powers (2016); Abaluck and Gruber (2016)). This evidence has motivated recent research on whether low-cost policy interventions can improve insurance choices when decision-making is distorted by costly cognition. For example, default plan assignments in public drug insurance settings have been shown to strongly influence enrollment and utilization, with important implications for welfare and market design (Brot-Goldberg et al. (2023)).

Potential papers for presentation today include:

References

Abaluck, Jason, and Jonathan Gruber. 2011. “Choice Inconsistencies Among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program.” American Economic Review 101 (4): 1180–210.
———. 2016. “Choice Inconsistencies Among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program: Reply.” American Economic Review 106 (12): 3962–87. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20151318.
Aron-Dine, Aviva, Liran Einav, and Amy Finkelstein. 2013. “The RAND Health Insurance Experiment, Three Decades Later.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (1): 197–222.
Brot-Goldberg, Zarek, Timothy Layton, Boris Vabson, and Adelina Yanyue Wang. 2023. “The Behavioral Foundations of Default Effects: Theory and Evidence from Medicare Part D.” American Economic Review 113 (10): 2718–58. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20210013.
Einav, Liran, and Amy Finkelstein. 2018. “Moral Hazard in Health Insurance: What We Know and How We Know It.” Journal of the European Economic Association 16 (4): 957–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvy017.
Finkelstein, Amy, Sarah Taubman, Bill Wright, Mira Bernstein, Jonathan Gruber, Joseph P Newhouse, Heidi Allen, Katherine Baicker, et al. 2012. “The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 127 (3): 1057–1106.
Ketcham, Jonathan D., Nicolai V. Kuminoff, and Christopher A. Powers. 2016. “Choice Inconsistencies Among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program: Comment.” American Economic Review 106 (12): 3932–61. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20131048.
Ketcham, Jonathan D, Claudio Lucarelli, Eugenio J Miravete, and M Christopher Roebuck. 2012. “Sinking, Swimming, or Learning to Swim in Medicare Part D.” American Economic Review 102 (6): 2639–73.