medicare beneficiaries’ choice of medicare + choice plans - a choice-with-screening model
DESCRIPTION
Medicare Beneficiaries’ Choice of Medicare + Choice Plans - A Choice-with-Screening Model. Qian Li Economics Department Indiana University Committee chair: Dr. Pravin K. Trivedi Committee member: Dr. Rusty Tchernis. Outline: Introduction Model Specification and Estimation Data Result - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Medicare Beneficiaries’ Choice of Medicare + Choice Plans - A Choice-with-Screening Model
Qian LiEconomics Department
Indiana University
Committee chair: Dr. Pravin K. Trivedi
Committee member: Dr. Rusty Tchernis
Outline: Introduction Model Specification and Estimation Data Result Conclusion
Introduction:
EBA
rule eConjunctiv :Example
ry compensato-non ry; Compensato
attributeby attribute e;alternativby eAlternativ:Category
:Rules Screening
) 1993 al.,et Johnson 1998; al.,et (Bettman
quo. statusat stay to tendandset choice hesimplify t toscreening use Consumers
costs. cognitive imposes choiceComplex
:economics behavioralby Explained
2006) Heiss, 2006; McFadden, 2004; Frank, 2001; (Atherly,
plan.best thechoosenot do iesbeneficiar Medicare
plans. of variety andnumber theincreases program C)(M
ChoiceMedicare coverage, expenseshealth for resourcerich provide To
Introduction:
elderly theof choiceplan CM theanalyze tosuitableNot
allowable Limit the
possible theall Enumerate
preference stated need :Models Utility Random ClassLatent
:MLE usingresearch Previous
set choice stage-second thedenotes where
,)Pr()|Pr()Pr(
: ealternativfor prob. Choice
screening thepass that products theamong choose :stage 2nd
ion consideratfurther for products available theallscreen :stage1st
:model choice discrete stage-Two
C
C
C
CCjj
j
C
Introduction:
reform Medicare anddesign insurancehealth for insights Provides
economicshealth in model choice stage- two theofn applicatioFirst
:choiceplan CMin behavior screening theAnalyze 2)
rule econjunctiv on the Focus
attributesfor demand by the parameters screening eExplain th
choice in the csdemographi of role theAnalyze
(2004)Allenby and Gilbride ofExtension
:model screening-with-choice a Propose 1)
:study thisof Purpose
rules screening variousanalyzeCan
concern anot isset universal theof size The
preference revealed consumers requiresOnly
methods (MCMC) Carlo MonteChain Markovby Estimated
:(2004)Allenby and Gilbride
Model Specification and Estimation: Choice-with-Screening Model:
chosen isplan th theif , 1
plan health ofutility latent the:
:processdecision theof stage 2nd
screening thepasses year in individualfor plan if ,1)~,~I(
rule screening in theargument generic a :~
screening in the usedn informatio attribute the:~
rule screening the:I(.)
:processdecision theof stage1st
(4.1) 1)~,~I( s.t. allfor if 1
:plan health of choice ,year in , Individual
processdecision of stage1st processdecision of stage 2nd
jy
z
ihkx
x
xkzzy
j ih
hij
hik
hhik
h
hik
hhikhikhijhij
Model Specification and Estimation: Modeling the 1st stage of the Decision Process:
quo statusat stay to tendency theReflects
set. choice stage-second in the always isoption default The
option.default screen thenot do sIndividual
)premiumI(:constraintbudget eIncorporat
attribute screeningth the toaccording screening the:)~I(
cutoff individual to~ demand individual from mapping decreasing-non:(.)
attribute screeningth for the demand individual the:~
plan of attribute screeningth the:~
(4.4) 1))~(~I( iff 1)~,~I(
:rule screening eConjunctiv
premium
j
hmhijm
hmhmm
hm
hijm
hmmhijmmhhij
mx
f
m
jmx
fxx
Model Specification and Estimation: Modeling the 1st stage of the Decision Process:
0~ iff ,1)~I(:5.0
,1)~I(:5.0
(4.8) )1,0( ~,'~~
(4.7) 0 ~ if 5.0
0~ if 5.0)~(
:...) ,1,2, 0 ( discrete is ~ If
error term : t;coefficien :
~affect may which cs,demographi s' individual :~
(4.6) ),0( ~,'~~
(4.5) ~)~(
:continuous is ~ If
:~ attribute screeningth for the Demand
1))~(~I( iff 1)~,~I( :rule screening eConjunctiv
2
hijmhmhijmhm
hmhijmhm
hmhmmhhm
hm
hmhmmhm
m
hmm
hmh
mhmhmmhhm
hmhmmhm
m
m
hmmhijmmhhij
xx
jx
NuuD
f
x
iidu
hD
NuuD
f
x
xm
fxx
Model Specification and Estimation: Modeling the 2nd stage of the Decision Process:
Ve
hD
VNeeD
jx
Nxz
xkzzy
h
hh
hhhh
hij
h
hij
hijhijhhijhij
hhikhikhijhij
ance with varierror term :
t;coefficien :
affect may which cs,demographi s' individual :
(4.3) ),0( iid ~ ,'
error term:
preference individual :
plan of attributes:
(4.2) )1,0( iid ~,'
:(MNP) modelprobit lmultinomiat coefficien Random
1)~,~I( s.t. allfor if 1:processDecision
Model Specification and Estimation: Estimation Outline:
,~,~
|
1or ,~,~
|
1or ,,,~
,~,|~
,,|
,,,,|
,),~,~I(,|
:outline MCMC
1or ,,~
|~
,,|
,|
)~,~I( ,|
:model screening-with-choice theof Structure
2
2
2
2
D
D
zDxy
VD
VDxz
xxyz
D
VD
xz
xzy
Data: Medicare Background:
rating Community
elderly the toplans sell toMedicareith contract w insurers Private
premium. BPart pay the and BPart in enroll alsomust enrollees CM The
:program C)(M Choice Medicare
Medicaid
plans retiree sponsored-Employer
plans Medigap
:s Supplement Medicare
2002)in ($54 premiummonthly a requires andVoluntary
care outpatientmost and servicesphysician Covers :BPart
premium no and enrollment Automatic
care nursing skilled andation hospitaliz Covers :APart
:elderly for theplan default theFFS, Medicare Original
Data: Datasets:
:structuremarket Medicare 2002
enrollees CM 657:sample final in the nsobservatio 967
elders the tooffered plans CM theofn Informatio
:(2002)dataset ComparePlan Health Medicare
ninformatio choiceplan theand csdemographi The
iesbeneficiar Medicare theof sample tiverepresenta nationallyA
:(2002)Survey y BeneficiarCurrent Medicare
Original Medicare FFS8%
M+C Plan15%
Medigap Plan27%
Employer-sponsored Plan
29%
Public Plan21%
Data: Variables:
1:~
DIABETES ,NCHRONIC ,HEALTH ,EDUCTION ,INCOME ,SEX ,AGE 1,:
:csDemographi
contract under the packages ofNumber : NPAK
plans C+M thepayment to capitation Medicare: AAPCC
attributesplan other in Generosity: ADD
payment -co visit specialist anddoctor primary Average: COPAYDV
~ attributes Screening
coverage exam physical routine Aggregated: PX
coverage service dental Aggregated: DEN
coverage service vision Aggregated: VISION
coverage service pitaldoctor/hosnetwork -Non: NON_NET
coverage drug Aggregated: DRUG
premium BPart theoaddition tin premiumMonthly : PREMIUM
: attributesPlan
demeaneddemeaneddemeaneddemeaneddemeaneddemeaneddemeaned
discrete
continuous
discrete
continuous
discrete
discrete
discrete
discrete
discrete
continuous
h
h
hij
hij
D
D
x
x
Result:
of DrawsPosterior
parameters theestimate toused draws 500
collected draw20th every discarded, 40,000first generated, draws 50,000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 104
-1
0
1
()
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 104
-20
-10
0
()
2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 104
-2
-1
0
()
3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 104
-20
-10
0
()
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 104
-5
0
5
()
5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x 104
-200
-100
0
()
6
Result
Table 7: Coefficient Estimates for the 1st Stage in the Choice-with-Screening Model
Posterior Mean (std.) of α
- PREMIUM DRUG NON_NET VISION DEN PX
Constant -92.5856(2.9776)
-0.4713(0.1117)
-7.5858(1.5540)
-1.0413(0.2093)
-13.7426(1.5827)
1.3945(0.2898)
Prob. of Used to Screen: 1-Φ(-α)
DRUG NON_NET VISION DEN PX
0.3187 0.0000 0.1489 0.0000 0.9184Bold indicates that more than 90% of the posterior draws have the same sign as the posterior mean.
Likely screens:
Premium, Prescription Drug Coverage ,Vision Service Coverage
Unlikely screens:
Non-network Doctor/hospital Service Coverage , Dental Service Coverage
Low mean demand → slow convergence Not sure screens:
Routine Physical Exam Coverage
Data lack of variation
hmmhm
hmmhijmm
u
fx
~
))~(~I(
Result
Table 8: Coefficient Estimates for the 2nd Stage in the Choice-with-Screening Model
hhh
hijhhijhij
eD
xz
'
'
Posterior Mean (std.) of Δ
PREMIUM DRUG NON_NET VISION DEN PX COPAYDV ADD NPAK AAPCC
Constant-0.0184(0.0166)
-0.0144(0.3664)
-13.8498(1.3832)
0.0271(0.7098)
-5.5293(0.9249)
-5.4748(0.6323)
-0.2961(0.0532)
0.1819(0.2239)
0.8144(0.1571)
0.0232(0.0042)
AGE(demeaned)
-0.0051(0.0030)
0.0373(0.0663)
-0.1730(0.1943)
-0.2866(0.1221)
-0.1716(0.1056)
-0.3030(0.0829)
-0.0027(0.0090)
0.0719(0.0407)
0.0058(0.0275)
0.0013(0.0007)
SEX(demeaned)
-0.0236(0.0347)
0.7314(0.5982)
-10.8803(2.5008)
1.8826(1.3451)
-0.3029(1.4562)
0.8989(1.0831)
0.3758(0.1287)
-0.7472(0.5297)
-0.1382(0.2987)
0.0010(0.0090)
INCOME(demeaned)
0.0067(0.0067)
-0.3413(0.1387)
-0.2823(0.6427)
-0.4315(0.2600)
-0.3124(0.2728)
-0.2126(0.2486)
-0.0480(0.0340)
0.2679(0.1133)
0.0051(0.0534)
0.0021(0.0015)
EDUCTION(demeaned)
0.0032(0.0107)
0.4669(0.1715)
-0.0693(0.6148)
0.1918(0.3524)
0.7173(0.4923)
-0.4711(0.4429)
-0.0286(0.0328)
-0.1558(0.1694)
-0.0694(0.0836)
-0.0016(0.0024)
HEALTH(demeaned)
-0.0182(0.0128)
-0.1371(0.3288)
1.6475(1.1186)
-1.2310(0.7752)
-0.6170(0.9242)
-0.2371(0.8465)
0.0902(0.0599)
-0.6482(0.2797)
0.0892(0.1254)
0.0013(0.0042)
NCHRONIC(demeaned)
0.0742(0.0213)
0.1396(0.4793)
-0.5059(1.7100)
1.2573(1.0072)
1.6780(0.8499)
0.1514(0.7332)
-0.2046(0.0693)
0.4136(0.2782)
-0.0292(0.1313)
-0.0064(0.0044)
DIABETES(demeaned)
-0.0138(0.0442)
-0.5651(1.0595)
2.8789(2.3601)
2.5910(1.4979)
1.8529(1.6840)
5.9157(1.2503)
0.3408(0.1403)
0.6193(0.7536)
-0.5797(0.2687)
-0.0094(0.0113)
Bold indicates that more than 90% of the posterior draws have the same sign as the posterior mean.
Posterior Mean (std.) of α
- PREMIUM DRUG NON_NET VISION DEN PX
Constant-92.5856(2.9776)
-0.4713(0.1117)
-7.5858(1.5540)
-1.0413(0.2093)
-13.7426(1.5827)
1.3945(0.2898)
Posterior Mean (std.) of Δ
PREMIUM DRUG NON_NET VISION DEN PX COPAYDV ADD NPAK AAPCC
Constant-0.0184(0.0166)
-0.0144(0.3664)
-13.8498(1.3832)
0.0271(0.7098)
-5.5293(0.9249)
-5.4748(0.6323)
-0.2961(0.0532)
0.1819(0.2239)
0.8144(0.1571)
0.0232(0.0042)
Average expected preference:
Likely screens: insignificant and small
Unlikely screens: significant, big and negative
Not sure screens: significant, big and negative
Result
Put two stages’ result together
Result
Table 11: Coefficient Estimates for the Random Coefficient MNP Model
Bold indicates that more than 90% of the posterior draws have the same sign as the posterior mean.
Posterior Mean (std.) of Δ
PREMIUM DRUG NON_NET VISION DEN PX COPAYDV ADD NPAK AAPCC
Constant-0.0872(0.0086)
2.3830(0.3751)
-14.4023(1.3508)
5.6250(0.7758)
-6.3934(0.7146)
-1.4805(0.9414)
-0.2312(0.0566)
0.2453(0.1713)
1.0415(0.1886)
-0.0244(0.0037)
AGE(demeaned) -0.0001
(0.0013)0.0070
(0.0499)-0.4528(0.2216)
-0.2024(0.1220)
0.1637(0.1139)
0.0843(0.1073)
0.0185(0.0090)
0.0126(0.0293)
-0.0582(0.0292)
0.0010(0.0005)
SEX(demeaned) -0.0152
(0.0160)-0.6755(0.7509)
-8.8078(2.8851)
0.0082(1.5779)
0.7650(1.0974)
2.8447(2.1401)
0.3399(0.1128)
-0.6582(0.3774)
-0.8327(0.3744)
0.0155(0.0071)
INCOME(demeaned) 0.0003
(0.0042)-0.0575(0.1662)
-2.0320(0.7420)
-0.0929(0.3166)
0.0997(0.2914)
0.9232(0.3366)
0.0158(0.0229)
0.1158(0.0964)
-0.0795(0.0860)
-0.0034(0.0016)
EDUCTION(demeaned) 0.0034
(0.0040)0.0560
(0.1745)1.9993
(0.6760)0.2588
(0.4213)0.5765
(0.3560)-0.8492(0.7264)
-0.0232(0.0279)
-0.0422(0.0986)
-0.1110(0.1033)
0.0032(0.0020)
HEALTH(demeaned) -0.0032
(0.0089)0.4207
(0.2690)2.2866
(1.4055)-0.2755(0.6778)
-1.6151(0.7103)
-0.8840(0.8330)
0.0233(0.0605)
-0.0942(0.1759)
0.1681(0.1804)
0.0001(0.0033)
NCHRONIC(demeaned) 0.0195
(0.0099)0.2157
(0.3139)1.1590
(1.5143)1.2505
(1.0892)1.3151
(0.6951)-2.3647(1.0255)
-0.1625(0.0707)
0.4122(0.2878)
0.2395(0.2112)
0.0023(0.0039)
DIABETES(demeaned) -0.0065
(0.0226)]-0.8197(0.8386)
-4.6250(2.8452)
1.0689(1.5822)
4.3045(1.2675)
7.2282(1.8522)
0.3921(0.1202)
-0.1536(0.3974)
-0.7943(0.4513)
-0.0026(0.0072)
Posterior Mean (std.) of Δ
PREMIUM DRUG NON_NET VISION DEN PX COPAYDV ADD NPAK AAPCC
Constant-0.0184(0.0166)
-0.0144(0.3664)
-13.8498(1.3832)
0.0271(0.7098)
-5.5293(0.9249)
-5.4748(0.6323)
-0.2961(0.0532)
0.1819(0.2239)
0.8144(0.1571)
0.0232(0.0042)
Coefficient Estimates for the 2nd Stage in the Choice-with-Screening Model
Coefficient Estimates for the Random Coefficient MNP Model
PREMIUM DRUG NON_NET VISION DEN PX COPAYDV ADD NPAK AAPCC
Constant-0.0872(0.0086)
2.3830(0.3751)
-14.4023(1.3508)
5.6250(0.7758)
-6.3934(0.7146)
-1.4805(0.9414)
-0.2312(0.0566)
0.2453(0.1713)
1.0415(0.1886)
-0.0244(0.0037)
log marginal density of the data: -210.6577
log marginal density of the data: -354.9882
Result
Compare two models
Table 13: Hypothetical Choice Sets in the Choice Probability Study
Result
Simulate the choice probability
PREMIUM DRUG NON_NET VISION DEN PX COPAYDV ADD NPAK AAPCC
Choice Set 1
M+C plan 50.65 1 0 2 0 1 15.37 0 6 623.25
Medicare FFS 0 0 1 0 0 0 25 0 0 0
Plan Attribute Changed Screening Model MNP Model
Choice Set 1 Baseline 0.6286 0.6197
Choice Set 2 PREMIUM = 101.3 0.3011 0.5834
Choice Set 3 PREMIUM = 0 0.7120 0.6528
Choice Set 4 DRUG = 0 0.4223 0.5972
Choice Set 5 DRUG = 2 0.6232 0.6404
Choice Set 6 NON_NET = 1 0.5244 0.5043
Choice Set 7 VISION = 0 0.5118 0.5358
Choice Set 8 VISION = 1 0.6270 0.5769
Choice Set 9 DEN = 1 0.5884 0.5663
Choice Set 10 DEN = 2 0.5400 0.5156
Bold indicates that the difference between the Screening Model and the MNP Model is greater that 0.05.
Table 14: Probability of Choosing M+C Plan, Plan Attribute Effect
Table 16: Probability of Choosing M+C Plan, Demographics Effect
Demographics Changed
Choice Set 1 Choice Set 2 Choice Set 3 Choice Set 4 Choice Set 5 Choice Set 7 Choice Set 8
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
Baseline0.6229 0.5629 0.3052 0.2763 0.7189 0.6444 0.4228 0.3873 0.6254 0.5637 0.5137 0.4804 0.6152 0.5698
AGE - 10.6229 0.5629 0.3055 0.2775 0.7180 0.6428 0.4233 0.3872 0.6257 0.5639 0.5109 0.4778 0.6141 0.5681
AGE + 10.6231 0.5632 0.3042 0.2754 0.7205 0.6460 0.4223 0.3870 0.6259 0.5637 0.5158 0.4825 0.6168 0.5711
INCOME - 10.6154 0.5541 0.2987 0.2738 0.7201 0.6462 0.4211 0.3766 0.6188 0.5561 0.504 0.473 0.6101 0.5618
INCOME + 10.6318 0.5678 0.3086 0.2794 0.7224 0.6498 0.4287 0.3905 0.6295 0.5603 0.5191 0.4866 0.6256 0.5748
EDUCATION - 10.6287 0.5713 0.3009 0.2768 0.7264 0.6518 0.4242 0.3883 0.628 0.5643 0.5179 0.4827 0.6199 0.5732
EDUCATION + 10.6228 0.5643 0.3031 0.2778 0.7174 0.6439 0.42 0.3812 0.6215 0.5622 0.5081 0.4716 0.6163 0.564
HEALTH - 10.6514 0.5928 0.3185 0.2907 0.742 0.6739 0.4388 0.4004 0.6492 0.592 0.5211 0.4902 0.6331 0.5898
HEALTH + 10.5976 0.5307 0.2867 0.2604 0.695 0.6251 0.4102 0.3688 0.5966 0.5313 0.5023 0.4653 0.6018 0.5453
NCHRONIC - 10.5983 0.5332 0.282 0.2502 0.7154 0.6416 0.4087 0.3655 0.5974 0.5345 0.5033 0.4664 0.6019 0.5475
NCHRONIC + 10.6484 0.5875 0.3226 0.2991 0.7311 0.6522 0.4416 0.4022 0.65 0.5875 0.5257 0.4853 0.6318 0.5838
DIABETES + 10.5968 0.5327 0.2892 0.2598 0.6872 0.6148 0.4048 0.363 0.5917 0.526 0.4631 0.4268 0.5734 0.5238
Bold indicates that the difference from the baseline is greater than 2%.
Table 17: Difference of Choice Prob. in Screening Model and in MNP Model
Bold indicates that the difference from the baseline is greater than 2%.
Choice Set 1 Choice Set 2 Choice Set 3 Choice Set 4 Choice Set 5 Choice Set 7 Choice Set 8
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
-0.0418 -0.0109 -0.3218 -0.2639 0.0296 0.0487 -0.22 -0.1575 -0.0493 -0.0348 -0.055 -0.002 -0.0021 0.0451
-0.0396 -0.0088 -0.3195 -0.2611 0.0304 0.0483 -0.2175 -0.1562 -0.0475 -0.0325 -0.0530 0.0004 0.0004 0.0466
-0.0426 -0.0123 -0.3242 -0.2670 0.0297 0.0480 -0.2218 -0.1598 -0.0503 -0.0365 -0.0569 -0.0044 -0.0032 0.0431
-0.0465 -0.0211 -0.3224 -0.268 0.0287 0.0412 -0.2191 -0.1678 -0.0569 -0.0397 -0.0615 -0.0061 -0.0021 0.0355
-0.0247 -0.0022 -0.3109 -0.2608 0.0321 0.0495 -0.2144 -0.1591 -0.0462 -0.0357 -0.0507 0.0069 0.0117 0.0476
-0.0359 -0.0066 -0.3246 -0.2698 0.0284 0.0434 -0.2206 -0.1601 -0.0528 -0.0331 -0.0517 -0.0098 -0.001 0.0424
-0.0317 -0.0023 -0.3182 -0.2589 0.0328 0.0472 -0.2165 -0.1613 -0.0507 -0.0284 -0.0491 -0.0019 0.0066 0.0399
-0.028 0.0021 -0.3231 -0.2723 0.0359 0.0562 -0.2227 -0.1708 -0.0445 -0.0246 -0.0629 -0.0043 0.0018 0.0441
-0.0422 -0.0216 -0.3139 -0.2591 0.0228 0.0439 -0.2104 -0.156 -0.0592 -0.0508 -0.048 0.0003 0.0033 0.0376
-0.0284 -0.0004 -0.2993 -0.2494 0.0514 0.0671 -0.2004 -0.1453 -0.0423 -0.0257 -0.05 0.0009 0.0136 0.0496
-0.0415 -0.0168 -0.3409 -0.2846 0.016 0.0248 -0.2336 -0.1824 -0.0564 -0.0422 -0.0619 -0.0156 -0.0093 0.0269
-0.0783 -0.0603 -0.3484 -0.3009 -0.0231 -0.009 -0.2605 -0.2097 -0.0971 -0.0871 -0.1113 -0.0597 -0.0546 -0.0156
Conclusion
markets. Medicareother todgeneralize becan paper in this findings The
overload.n informatio of existence theindicatesbehavior screening The
screen. elderly to thehelp n toinformatioclear Providing
screening. iesbeneficiar thesurvive todesigned be should plans CM The
:suggestionPolicy
data. eexplain th tohelpcan plan default in theinterest thegConsiderin
plans. CM thechoosing ofy probabilit on the effectsnonlinear have attributesPlan
elderly theof choiceplan CM in thebehavior screeningDetect