Because many seniors choose Medicare Part D plans offering poorer coverage at greater cost, the authors examined the effect of price frames, brand names, and choice set size on participants’ ability to choose the lowest cost plan. A 2 × 2 × 2 within-subjects design was used with 126 participants aged 18 to 91 years old. Mouselab, a web-based program, allowed participants to choose drug plans across eight trials that varied using numeric or symbolic prices, real or fictitious drug plan names, and three or nine drug plan options. Results from the multilevel models suggest numeric versus symbolic prices decreased the likelihood of choosing the lowest cost plan (−8.0 percentage points, 95% confidence interval = −14.7 to −0.9). The likelihood of choosing the lowest cost plan decreased as the amount of information increased suggesting that decision cues operated independently and collectively when selecting a drug plan. Redesigning the current Medicare Part D plan decision environment could improve seniors’ drug plan choices.
BesedešT.DeckC.SarangiS.ShorM. (in press). Age effects and heuristics in decision making. Review of Economics and Statistics. doi:10.1162/REST_a_0017410.1162/REST_a_00174
2.
BettmanJ. R.JohnsonE. J.PayneJ. W. (1990). A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 111-139.
3.
BrucksM.ZeithamlV. A.NaylorG. (2000). Price and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions for consumer durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 359-374.
4.
BundorfK. M.SzrekH. (2010). Choice set size and decision making: The case of Medicare Part D prescription drug plans. Medical Decision Making, 30, 582-593.
5.
DominoM. E.StearnsS. C.NortonE. C.YehW. (2008). Why using current medications to select a Medicare Part D plan may lead to higher out-of-pocket payments. Medical Care Research and Review, 65, 114-126.
6.
DudleyR. A.HibbardJ. H.ShallerD. (2010). Model public report elements: A sampler. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
7.
FrankR. G.LamirandK. (2008, February). Choice, price competition and complexity in markets for health insurance (NBER Working Paper No. 13817). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
8.
GantherJ. M.KrelingD. H. (2000). Consumer perceptions of risk and required cost savings for generic prescription drugs. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association, 40, 378-383.
9.
GrewalD.KrishnanR.BakerJ.BorinN. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74, 331-352.
HanochY.RiceT.CummingsJ.WoodS. (2009). How much choice is too much? The case of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Health Service Research, 44, 1157-1168.
12.
HanochY.WoodS.BarnesA.LiuP.-J.RiceT. (2011). Choosing the right Medicare prescription drug plan: The effect of age, strategy selection, and choice set size. Health Psychology, 30, 719-727.
13.
HibbardJ. H.SlovicP.PetersE.FinucaneM. L.TuslerM. (2001). Is the informed-choice policy approach appropriate for Medicare beneficiaries?Health Affairs, 20, 199-203.
14.
HoyerW. D.BrownS. P. (1990). Effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 141-148.
15.
IyengarS. S.HubermanG.JiangW. (2004). How much choice is too much? Contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. In MitchellO. S.UtkusS. (Eds.), Pension design and structure: New lessons from behavioral finance (pp. 83-95). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
IyengarS. S.LepperM. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995-1006.
17.
IyengarS. S.WellsR. E.SchwartzB. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse: Looking for the “best” job undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17, 143-150.
18.
JohnsonE. J.PayneJ. W.BettmanJ. R. (1988). Information displays and preference reversals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42, 1-21.
LipkusI. M.SamsaG.RimerB. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21, 37-44.
21.
MaheswaranD.MackieD. M.ChaikenS. (1992). Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 317-336
22.
McWilliamsM. J.AfendulisC. C.McGuireT. G.LandonB. E. (2011). Complex Medicare advantage choice may overwhelm seniors—especially those with impaired decision making. Health Affairs, 30, 1786-1794.
NeumanP.StrolloM. K.GutermanS.RogersW. H.LiA.RoddayA. M.SafranD. G. (2007). Medicare prescription drug benefit progress report: Findings from a 2006 national survey of seniors. Health Affairs, 26, 630-643.
25.
PayneJ. W.BettmanJ. R.JohnsonE. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534-552.
26.
PayneJ. W.BettmanJ. R.JohnsonE. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27.
PetersE.DieckmannN.DixonA.HibbardJ. H.MertzC. K. (2007). Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Medical Care Research and Review, 64, 169-190.
28.
RaoA. R.MonroeK. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’ perception of product quality: An integrative approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 351-357.
29.
SchramA.SonnemansJ. (2011). How individuals choose health insurance: An experimental analysis. European Economic Review, 55, 799-819.
30.
SmithM. D.BrynjolfssonE. (2001). Consumer decision-making at an internet shopbot: Brand still matters. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 49, 541-558.
31.
WillemsenM. C.JohnsonE. J. (2009). Why and when context effects. In McGillA.SchavittS. (Eds.), Beyond 2x2x2: Methodological advances in uncovering consumer decision processes (pp. 82-85). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
