scholarly journals Contracting with Limited Commitment: Evidence from Employment-Based Health Insurance Contracts

2003 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith J. Crocker ◽  
John R. Moran
Author(s):  
Jan Abel Olsen

This chapter seeks to explain why most people prefer to have a health insurance plan. Two types of uncertainty give rise to the demand for financial protection: people do not know if they will ever come to need healthcare, and they do not know the full financial implications of illness. Health insurance would take away—or at least reduce—such financial uncertainties associated with future illnesses. A model is presented to show the so-called welfare gain from health insurance. This is followed by an investigation into the potential efficiency losses of health insurance, due to excess demand for services. In the last section, a different efficiency problem is discussed: when people have an incentive to signal ‘false risks’, this can lead to there being no market for insurance contracts which reflect ‘true risks’.


2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 107-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Broer

This paper shows how two standard models of consumption risk-sharing—self-insurance through borrowing and saving and limited commitment to insurance contracts—replicate similarly well the standard, second-moment measures of insurance observed in US micro data. A nonparametric analysis, however, reveals strongly contrasting and counterfactual joint distributions of consumption, income and wealth. Method of moments estimation shows how measurement error in consumption eliminates excessive skewness and smoothness of consumption growth. Moreover, counterfactual nonlinearities disappear at high-estimated risk aversion under self-insurance, but are a robust feature of limited commitment. Its “shape of insurance” thus argues in favor of the self-insurance model. (JEL D14, D81, D91, G22, E21)


1996 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-84
Author(s):  
D'Andra Millsap

Employer-provided health insurance is the backbone of the American healthcare system. Approximately four of five workers in the United States rely on health insurance provided in the workplace. Many commentators view access to health insurance as the doorway to the entire health care system. Thus, the benefits covered in employer-provided health insurance plans significantly impact millions of Americans.While private health insurance usually covers abortion, it traditionally has not covered infertility services. Eventually, courts began interpreting insurance contracts to include infertility treatments, leading insurers to specifically exclude infertility treatments from coverage. In response, a few states have passed mandated benefit laws requiring coverage of some or all infertility services. Nonetheless, current insurance coverage of infertility services is “erratic” at best. These exclusions are significant because abortion and infertility services can be quite expensive for the millions of infertile couples seeking some sort of infertility treatment and the millions of women who have abortions each year.


2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 692-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johann Eekhoff ◽  
Markus Jankowski ◽  
Anne Zimmermann

2017 ◽  
Vol 146 ◽  
pp. 27-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liran Einav ◽  
Amy Finkelstein ◽  
Paul Schrimpf

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document