Home > Personal Finance > Study: Most Choose Pricier Health Plans Than Needed

Comments 0 Comments

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 20 million Americans will choose health coverage on the insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. Those marketplaces opened Oct. 1, and while technical difficulties have been an obstacle so far, there’s also concern about consumers’ ability to choose a cost-effective insurance plan.

A study from Columbia Business School suggests that more than half of consumers will not choose the most cost-effective plan available to them.

The research involved six experiments in which consumers were asked to choose the most cost-effective plan based on estimated doctor visits and varying prices among plan premiums, co-payments and deductibles.

When presented with this information, consumers chose the most cost-effective option only 32% of the time with plans they chose averaging $611 of added cost. The consumers’ failure to pick the most cost-effective plan may reflect a difficulty in calculating potential costs.

How People Decide

Researchers identified another possible reason for the decisions. While subjects were required to pass a comprehension test covering health insurance terms, they may have based their decisions on the costs of co-payments, premiums and deductibles.

“According to economic theory, these costs should be approximately equally weighted since they all occur over the course of a year, and all contribute to the annual cost of the policy,” the report says. “However, past research has indicated that some costs (usually deductibles) are overweighted while others, like premiums, are underweighted.”

Participants in this research appear to have done exactly that, giving more weight to out-of-pocket costs and deductibles in their decisions.

Even when people had access to price calculators (which some insurance websites provide) consumers picked the most cost-effective plan only 47% of the time, costing an extra $364, on average. A news release about the study elaborated on the impact of these costs:

“Consumers’ failure to identify the most appropriate plan has considerable consequences on both their pocketbooks as well as the cost of the overall system,” said Eric Johnson, co-author of the report and co-director of Columbia Business School’s Center for Decision Sciences. “If consumers can’t identify the most cost-efficient plan for their needs, the exchanges will fail to produce competitive pressures on health care providers and bring down costs across the board, one of the main advantages of relying upon choice and markets.”

Tools That Make a Difference

One experiment cited in the study used Columbia MBA students enrolled in a personal finance class, and they chose the most cost-efficient plans 73% of the time. Their choices added an average $126 to the cost of coverage. This experiment gave the subjects access to a price calculator, suggesting the importance of both knowledge and the ability to calculate potential costs.

In another experiment, consumers were presented with a tutorial about calculating annual costs and a quiz testing their abilities to do so. Some consumers were given calculators, and some used “smart defaults,” which selected the most cost-effective option based on the consumer’s use of health care. Subjects were allowed to change the default plan, and several did.

But when given access to both the calculator and the smart-default process, consumers’ decision-making matched that of the MBA students.

The idea of the experiment was to show how the exchanges could be designed to help consumers make the most cost-effective decisions when choosing health plans, and the conclusion of the report offered several suggestions for accomplishing that.

Given the current structure of health plan information — whether presented through an online marketplace or by an employer — insurance customers need to take the time to educate themselves about health insurance costs and their impact on consumers’ overall financial pictures.

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team