A. “Plan Selection in Medicare Part D: Evidence from Administrative Data,” by Florian Heiss, Adam Leive, Daniel McFadden, and Joachim Winter (w18166, June 2012, .pdf format, 46p.).
Abstract:
We study the Medicare Part D prescription drug insurance program as a bellwether for designs of private, non-mandatory health insurance markets, focusing on the ability of consumers to evaluate and optimize their choices of plans. Our analysis of administrative data on medical claims in Medicare Part D suggests that less than 10 percent of individuals enroll in plans that are ex post optimal with respect to total cost (premiums and co-payments). Relative to the benchmark of a static decision rule, similar to the Plan Finder provided by the Medicare administration, that conditions next year’s plan choice only on the drugs consumed in the current year, enrollees lost on average about $300 per year. These numbers are hard to reconcile with decision costs alone; it appears that unless a sizeable fraction of consumers value plan features other than cost, they are not optimizing effectively.
B. “What is the Impact of Financial Advisors on Retirement Portfolio Choices and Outcomes?” by John Chalmers and Jonathan Reuter (w18158, June 2012, .pdf format, 28p.).
Abstract:
Within the Oregon University System’s defined contribution retirement plan, one investment provider offers access to face-to-face financial advice through its network of brokers. We find that younger, less highly educated, and less highly paid employees are more likely to choose this provider. To benchmark the portfolios of broker clients, we use the actual portfolios of self-directed investors and counterfactual portfolios constructed using target-date funds, a popular default investment. Broker clients allocate contributions across a larger number of investments than self-directed investors, and they are less likely to remain fully invested in the default option. However, broker clients’ portfolios are significantly riskier than self-directed investors’ portfolios, and they underperform both benchmarks. Exploiting across-fund variation in broker compensation, we find that broker clients’ allocations are higher when broker fees are higher. Survey responses from current plan participants support our identifying assumption that the portfolio choices of broker clients reflect the recommendations of their brokers.
