• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

老年人的选择不一致性:来自医疗保险处方药计划中计划选择的证据。

Choice Inconsistencies Among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program.

机构信息

MIT.

出版信息

Am Econ Rev. 2011 Jun 1;101(4):1180-1210. doi: 10.1257/aer.101.4.1180.

DOI:10.1257/aer.101.4.1180
PMID:21857716
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3157937/
Abstract

We evaluate the choices of elders across their insurance options under the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug plan, using a unique data set of prescription drug claims matched to information on the characteristics of choice sets. We document that elders place much more weight on plan premiums than on expected out of pocket costs; value plan financial characteristics beyond any impacts on their own financial expenses or risk; and place almost no value on variance reducing aspects of plans. Partial equilibrium welfare analysis implies that welfare would have been 27% higher if patients had all chosen rationally.

摘要

我们评估了老年人在 Medicare Part D 处方药计划下的各种保险选择,使用了一个独特的处方药索赔数据集,该数据集与选择集特征的信息相匹配。我们记录到,老年人更看重计划保费,而不是预期的自付费用;重视计划财务特征,而不仅仅是对自己财务费用或风险的影响;几乎不重视降低计划方差的方面。局部均衡福利分析表明,如果患者都进行了理性选择,那么福利将提高 27%。

相似文献

1
Choice Inconsistencies Among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program.老年人的选择不一致性:来自医疗保险处方药计划中计划选择的证据。
Am Econ Rev. 2011 Jun 1;101(4):1180-1210. doi: 10.1257/aer.101.4.1180.
2
Evolving Choice Inconsistencies in Choice of Prescription Drug Insurance.处方药保险选择中不断演变的选择不一致性。
Am Econ Rev. 2016 Aug;106(8):2145-2184. doi: 10.1257/aer.20130778.
3
Heterogeneity in Choice Inconsistencies Among the Elderly: Evidence from Prescription Drug Plan Choice.老年人选择不一致中的异质性:来自处方药计划选择的证据。
Am Econ Rev. 2011 May;101(3):377-381. doi: 10.1257/aer.101.3.377.
4
Paying Attention or Paying Too Much in Medicare Part D.注意 Medicare 部分 D 或过分注意 Medicare 部分 D
Am Econ Rev. 2015 Jan;105(1):204-33. doi: 10.1257/aer.20120651.
5
Medicare Part D and Portfolio Choice.医疗保险处方药部分和投资组合选择。
Am Econ Rev. 2016 May;106(5):339-42. doi: 10.1257/aer.p20161125.
6
Choice Inconsistencies among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program: Reply.老年人的选择不一致性:来自医疗保险处方药计划选择的证据:回复。
Am Econ Rev. 2016 Dec;106(12):3962-87.
7
Choice Inconsistencies among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program: Comment.老年人的选择不一致性:来自医疗保险处方药计划中计划选择的证据:评论。
Am Econ Rev. 2016 Dec;106(12):3932-61. doi: 10.1257/aer.20131048.
8
The role of satisfaction and switching costs in Medicare Part D choices.满意度和转换成本在医疗保险D部分选择中的作用。
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014 Mar-Apr;10(2):398-407. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.06.010. Epub 2013 Aug 27.
9
Plan selection in Medicare Part D: evidence from administrative data.医疗保险D部分的计划选择:来自行政数据的证据
J Health Econ. 2013 Dec;32(6):1325-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.06.006.
10
Do Medicare Beneficiaries Living With HIV/AIDS Choose Prescription Drug Plans That Minimize Their Total Spending?感染艾滋病毒/艾滋病的医疗保险受益人会选择能使他们总支出最小化的处方药计划吗?
Inquiry. 2017 Jan 1;54:46958017734032. doi: 10.1177/0046958017734032.

引用本文的文献

1
"Nothing Is as Great a Learning Experience as Getting a $15,000 Bill": A Mixed-Methods Study of Young Adult Cancer Survivors' Experience With Insurance Coverage.“没有什么比收到一张1.5万美元的账单更能成为一次深刻的学习经历了”:一项关于年轻成年癌症幸存者保险覆盖经历的混合方法研究。
JCO Oncol Pract. 2025 Jun 16:OP2401075. doi: 10.1200/OP-24-01075.
2
Care Continuity, Nephrologists' Dialysis Facility Preferences, and Outcomes.护理连续性、肾病学家对透析设施的偏好及结果
JAMA Health Forum. 2025 Apr 4;6(4):e250423. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.0423.
3
Medicare Part D beneficiaries' self-reported barriers to switching plans and making plan comparisons at all.医疗保险D部分受益人的自我报告的在更换计划以及进行计划比较方面存在的障碍。
Health Aff Sch. 2024 Nov 2;2(11):qxae141. doi: 10.1093/haschl/qxae141. eCollection 2024 Nov.
4
Adverse selection and consumer inertia: empirical evidence from the Dutch health insurance market.逆向选择与消费者惰性:来自荷兰健康保险市场的实证证据
Eur J Health Econ. 2025 Jun;26(4):641-651. doi: 10.1007/s10198-024-01725-8. Epub 2024 Oct 1.
5
Demand heterogeneity in insurance markets: Implications for equity and efficiency.保险市场中的需求异质性:对公平与效率的影响。
Quant Econom. 2017 Nov;8(3):929-975. doi: 10.3982/qe794. Epub 2017 Nov 20.
6
Health Plan Switching and Health Care Utilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial.健康计划转换与医疗保健利用:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Health Forum. 2024 Mar 1;5(3):e240324. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.0324.
7
The Demand for Insurance and Rationale for a Mandate: Evidence from Workers' Compensation Insurance.保险需求与强制保险的理论依据:来自工人补偿保险的证据。
Am Econ Rev. 2022 May;112(5):1621-1668. doi: 10.1257/aer.20190261.
8
"Pick a Plan and Roll the Dice": A qualitative study of consumer experiences selecting a health plan in the non-group market.“选择一个方案并掷骰子”:一项关于非团体市场中消费者选择健康保险方案经历的定性研究
Health Policy Open. 2023 Dec 2;5:100112. doi: 10.1016/j.hpopen.2023.100112. eCollection 2023 Dec 15.
9
Can Automatic Retention Improve Health Insurance Market Outcomes?自动保留能否改善健康保险市场的结果?
AEA Pap Proc. 2021 May;111:560-566. doi: 10.1257/pandp.20211083.
10
How do low-income enrollees in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces respond to cost-sharing?《平价医疗法案》市场中的低收入参保者如何应对费用分担?
J Risk Insur. 2023 Mar;90(1):155-183. doi: 10.1111/jori.12416. Epub 2023 Jan 20.

本文引用的文献

1
Providing prescription drug coverage to the elderly: America's experiment with Medicare Part D.为老年人提供处方药保险:美国的医疗保险D部分试验。
J Econ Perspect. 2008 Fall;22(4):69-92. doi: 10.1257/jep.22.4.69.
2
Who failed to enroll in Medicare Part D, and why? Early results.哪些人未能加入医疗保险D部分,原因是什么?初步结果。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2006 Sep-Oct;25(5):w344-54. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.w344. Epub 2006 Aug 1.
3
When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing?当选择产生消极作用时:一个人能否对好事期望过高?
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000 Dec;79(6):995-1006. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.995.
4
Worldwide prevalence and incidence of dementia.全球痴呆症的患病率和发病率。
Drugs Aging. 1999 Nov;15(5):365-75. doi: 10.2165/00002512-199915050-00004.
5
The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition.成人认知年龄差异的加工速度理论。
Psychol Rev. 1996 Jul;103(3):403-28. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.403.