ArticleInternational journal of health economics and management2026
Misperception, self-reported probabilities and long-term care insurance take-up in the United States.
Article in International journal of health economics and management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
In the United States as in other developed countries, the take-up of Long-Term Care (LTC) insurance remains very low, suggesting that many individuals underestimate their future needs for professional LTC services. This paper examines the relationship between subjective expectations and LTC insurance demand, with a particular focus on miscalibration of survival beliefs. Using 12 waves of the Health and Retirement Study (1996-2018), we estimate various random effects linear probability models of LTC insurance take-up among individuals aged 50-75 years. We rely on two self-reported expectation measures: the probability of survival and the probability of nursing home entry. We then classify individuals into three groups - consistent, positive deviation, and negative deviation - based on the difference between subjective survival beliefs and life-table benchmarks. Robustness analyses are carried using alternative miscalibration measures, age groups and control variables. Our findings reveal strong heterogeneity. Individuals whose beliefs are consistent with life-table probabilities purchase more LTC insurance when they expect to live longer, in line with higher anticipated old-age expenditures. By contrast, individuals who substantially overestimate survival ("positive deviation" group) display no systematic response to either type of expectation, which could be related to cognitive difficulties in projecting future needs. Those who underestimate survival ("negative deviation" group) are responsive to nursing home expectations but less so to survival, indicating that they may anticipate short-term care needs but not long-term expenditures. Taken together, these results suggest that miscalibration of survival beliefs is an important determinant of insurance demand. They highlight that underestimation and overestimation reflect different mechanisms - potential private health information in the former case and cognitive limitations in the latter - ultimately contributing to the persistently low take-up of LTC insurance in the U.S.
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.