Of course, using survey data on people’s self-reported decisions
in hypothetical choices entails its own set of serious concerns, such
as anchoring bias (the tendency of individuals to choose a valuation
close to the first price the survey suggests). We make an effort
to address anchoring bias by randomly varying the initial prices
we offer respondents and find no significant effect of the initial
offer on respondents’ final valuation. Moreover, our survey differs
from contingent valuation (CV) studies, which typically ask respondents
to value a public good, such as an environmental project,
with which they have little personal experience. We instead ask
about a private good that most people would have experience with:
given the well-documented “churning” in health-insurance status
(see, e.g., Klein et al., 2005), many uninsured individuals would
have purchased insurance in the recent past. Indeed, past work on
take-up decisions for employer-provided insurance has shown that
hypothetical-choice surveys and actual field data yield very similar
demand elasticities (Royalty and Hagens, 2005). However, other
potential biases related to hypothetical valuation are more difficult
to address and we laterdiscusshow theymight affect our estimates.
At a minimum, our simulations of the effects of the ACA provide a
benchmark with which to compare the eventual enrollment patterns
once the law’s provisions are fully implemented and thus will
allow researchers to further gauge the utility of using survey data
on health insurance demand
Of course, using survey data on people’s self-reported decisionsin hypothetical choices entails its own set of serious concerns, suchas anchoring bias (the tendency of individuals to choose a valuationclose to the first price the survey suggests). We make an effortto address anchoring bias by randomly varying the initial priceswe offer respondents and find no significant effect of the initialoffer on respondents’ final valuation. Moreover, our survey differsfrom contingent valuation (CV) studies, which typically ask respondentsto value a public good, such as an environmental project,with which they have little personal experience. We instead askabout a private good that most people would have experience with:given the well-documented “churning” in health-insurance status(see, e.g., Klein et al., 2005), many uninsured individuals wouldhave purchased insurance in the recent past. Indeed, past work ontake-up decisions for employer-provided insurance has shown thathypothetical-choice surveys and actual field data yield very similardemand elasticities (Royalty and Hagens, 2005). However, otherpotential biases related to hypothetical valuation are more difficultto address and we laterdiscusshow theymight affect our estimates.At a minimum, our simulations of the effects of the ACA provide abenchmark with which to compare the eventual enrollment patternsonce the law’s provisions are fully implemented and thus willallow researchers to further gauge the utility of using survey dataon health insurance demand
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..