ArticleHealth economics2023
Testing for selection bias and moral hazard in private health insurance: Evidence from a mixed public-private health system.
Article in Health economics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Racial/Ethnic variation in health insurance coverage and early midlife depressive symptoms in the U.S.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Recovery trajectories after a serious injury or illness: a longitudinal evaluation of health-related quality of life in an Australian cohort.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Article
- Estimating the adverse selection and moral hazard in Urban and Rural Resident Basic Medical Insurance of China: a semi-parametric estimation approach.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Testing for selection bias and moral hazard in private health insurance: Evidence from a mixed public-private health system.Health economics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Separating selection bias from moral hazard in private health insurance (PHI) markets has been a challenging task. We estimate selection bias and moral hazard in Australia's mixed public-private health system, where PHI premiums are community-rated rather than risk-rated. Using longitudinal cohort data, with fine-grained measures for medical services predominantly funded by PHI providers, we find consistent and robust estimates of advantageous selection among hospitalized cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients. Specifically, we show that in addition to their risk-averse attributes, CVD patients who purchase PHI use fewer services that are not covered by PHI providers (e.g., general practitioners and emergency departments) and have fewer comorbidities. Finally, unlike previous studies, we show that ex-post moral hazard exists in the use of specific "in-hospital" medical services such as specialist and physician services, miscellaneous diagnostic procedures, and therapeutic treatments. From the perspective of PHI providers, the annual cost of moral hazard translates to a lower bound estimate of $707 per patient, equivalent to a 3.03% reduction in their annual profits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.