2019
DOI: 10.1093/restud/rdz023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Salience, Myopia, and Complex Dynamic Incentives: Evidence from Medicare Part D

Abstract: At least one co-author has disclosed a financial relationship of potential relevance for this research. Further information is available online at http://www.nber.org/papers/w21104.ack NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
41
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
1
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…() and Dalton et al. (), also estimate moral hazard effects using structural, WYDM models, but differ from my research in several ways: (i) These models do not allow for endogenous health transitions or endogenous insurance selection, and (ii) analysis is limited to prescription drug decisions of Medicare enrollees. Most importantly, neither paper compares estimated moral hazard effects across models featuring both annual and within‐year medical care decision making, which is the primary objective of this research.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…() and Dalton et al. (), also estimate moral hazard effects using structural, WYDM models, but differ from my research in several ways: (i) These models do not allow for endogenous health transitions or endogenous insurance selection, and (ii) analysis is limited to prescription drug decisions of Medicare enrollees. Most importantly, neither paper compares estimated moral hazard effects across models featuring both annual and within‐year medical care decision making, which is the primary objective of this research.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…(), Dalton et al. (), and Lin and Sacks (). In all of these studies, insurance possession is either randomized or assumed to be exogenously determined, limiting the scope of policy experiments that can be studied.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To our knowledge, there are only a handful papers that explore such an identification argument to estimate a consumer's discount factor or her incentive to consider future payoffs (Chevalier and Goolsbee (2009), Ishihara and Ching (2012), Chung, Steenburgh, and Sudhir (2013), Lee (2013), Ching, Erdem, and Keane (2014), , Dalton, Gowrisankaran, and Town (2019), De Groote and Verboven (2019)). These papers investigate sales force compensation schemes, rewards programs, consumer learning, and how the price of used goods affects the demand for new goods.…”
Section: Review Of Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“… Dalton, Gowrisankaran, and Town (forthcoming) used a similar argument to identify salience and myopia in a dynamic discrete choice model with parametric utility applied to Medicare Part D data. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%