Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
90
views

A $1 million, ten-year term life insurance policy for a fifty-year-old male in Massachusetts costs around $1,200 per year. The same policy for female costs around $980 per year.

Explain why life insurance for female costs less than for a male.

Suppose the government were to pass a law requiring insurers to offer the same prices for men and women. What effect would you expect this to have on prices and insurance coverage? How would this affect social welfare?

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
90
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Darryn D'Souza
Darryn D'SouzaLv10
28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

Mexico has two main government programs that transfer income to rural households. They are:

PROCAMPO, which pays a set amount per acre to farmers who grew basic grains in a base year prior to the elimination of guaranteed prices. Output price guarantees are not allowed under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.The idea here was to replace the price support with a direct income payment to farmers, to compensate them for lower grain prices. Direct income payments are allowed, because unlike price supports, they are not expected to affect production (in ag policy jargon, they are“decoupled.”) Most PROCAMPO payments go to corn farmers, big and small.

OPORTUNIDADES, a conditional welfare program that gives payments to poor women provided that their children are enrolled in schools and in the local clinic. The idea is to combat poverty in the short run (by giving money to women, the responsible ones!) and in the long run (by making sure kids get the human capital they need to be productive and make an income when they get older). This has become a model for welfare programs in less-developed countries—and even in New York City!

a) How would you expect each one of these public transfer programs to affect (i) inequality and(ii) poverty in rural Mexico? Why?

Case Study: Mental Health Parity

Presenting to the board, Chris spoke with passion. Our insurance plan should provide the same coverage for mental health services as for other medical services. It's the right thing to do, and it's good business. If our employees or their dependents have untreated mental health problems, the employees become less productive and waste money getting treated for other stuff. Thank you, Chris,€ said Kerry, the company's CEO. This is an important question for us, and the Benefits Committee will carefully consider it. After Chris left the room, Kerry turned to Jordan, the director of human resources, and said, Jordan, what's your take on this? There are actually two questions here, said Jordan. First, how elastic is the demand for ambulatory mental health services? How much will the use of mental health services increase if coverage improves? Second, how effective is mental health care? This second question is the more important one because good mental health care can have such powerful effects. Now, a number of studies have concluded that the use of mental health services is more price-sensitive than the use of other ambulatory care. Analyses of ambulatory mental health services have found elasticities ranging from 0.44 to 1.00. These results could be statistical flukes. Consumers who expect to use mental health services may choose insurance plans that offer generous coverage for those services. However, the RAND Corporation researchers Keeler, Manning, and Wells in 1988 used data from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment, which randomly assigned respondents to insurance plans, to resolve this issue. The RAND analysis generally confirmed that the demand for mental health services is more price-sensitive than the demand for general ambulatory medical services. Demand for each is inelastic, but the elasticity for mental health services is 0.8 and the elasticity for other outpatient services is 0.3. Most consumers will not use any mental health services, but plans that offer generous mental health benefits will cost more. We can't ignore this. I'm confused,€ said Addison, an internist on the board. In 2012 McConnell and colleagues published a study showing that Oregon's law requiring mental health parity in commercial insurance plans had little effect on spending. How could that be? Real-life appears to be contradicting the RAND study. I'm sure the plans for federal employees used managed care techniques to control spending,€ Jordan jumped in. And mental health spending isn't the issue. The issues are what happens to other healthcare spending and what happens to our workers. I'm pretty sure there's good evidence showing that effective mental health treatment can reduce other costs and improve productivity.

Discussion questions:

Why does it matter whether demand for mental health services is more elastic than demand for other services?

The price elasticity of demand for ambulatory mental health services appears to be about 0.8, and the price elasticity for general ambulatory medical services appears to be about 0.3. How much would spending increase for each type of care if copayments were cut from $40 to $25?

What managed care techniques do insurers use to control spending?

Is there evidence that better treatment of mental health problems reduces other spending?

Is there evidence that better treatment of mental health problems improves productivity?

What is your recommendation to the Benefits Committee?

Topic:
How would you explain the finding that people in high-income economies seem happier than people in low-income economies, but, over time, people in high-income economies do not seem to be any happier even if their country grows richer? Briefly discuss.

Optional Reading:

Income and Happiness

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 identified “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This did not guarantee happiness but did establish the pursuit of happiness as an “unalienable” right, meaning that right cannot be taken away, given away, or sold. Eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham argued that government policy should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Many people today apparently agree. In recent polls, 77 percent of Australians and 81 percent of Brits believed that a government's prime objective should be promoting the greatest happiness rather than the greatest wealth. The United Nations in 2007 sponsored an international conference on “Happiness and Public Policy.” Thailand now compiles a monthly Gross Domestic Happiness Index. Even China has joined in the fun reporting a happiness index based on polling results about living conditions, income, the environment, social welfare, and employment. Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom are also developing happiness indexes.

Economists have long shied away from asking people how they feel, preferring instead to observe their behavior. But more now see some value in asking questions. In the most extensive of polls, the Gallup organization asked people in 130 countries: “How satisfied are you with your life, on a scale of zero to ten?” The results, reported in 2007, are not surprising. Most people in the high income areas, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan, said they are happy. Most people in the poor areas, especially in Africa, said they are not. Also, within a given country, income and happiness are positively related. After evaluating all the results of the Gallup world poll, Angus Deaton of Princeton concluded: “The very strong international relationship between per capita GDP and life satisfaction suggests that, on average, people have a good idea of how income, or the lack of it, affects their lives.” 8

So these results are no surprise. What does puzzle economists is that other surveys suggest that in affluent countries people do not seem any happier over time even though each generation became richer than the last. For example, in the United States, the proportion of people who say they are happy has stayed about the same despite 60 years of economic growth. In Japan, happiness responses actually declined despite a substantial increase in real income over the last 50 years.

Here are two possible explanations. First, people begin taking for granted those luxuries they most desired. For example, two generations ago color TVs, automobiles, and major appliances were luxuries, but now they are must-items for most households. Computers and flat screen HDTVs will soon move from luxuries to necessities. As each generation attains a higher standard of living, people become less sensitive to the benefits, they take them for granted, and thus they say they are no happier.

Second, research suggests that what matters is not just the absolute level of income but income relative other people in the reference group. Imagine you have a choice between (1) earning $50,000 a year while others in your reference group make $25,000 or (2) earning $100,000 a year while others make $250,000 (suppose, too, that prices remain the same, so $100,000 is double the real income of $50,000). Which would you prefer? Studies show that when people face this hypothetical choice, most pick the $50,000 option. That is, they prefer to make more than others even if that means a lower real income. Thus, if all incomes rise on average over time, this does not affect that aspect of happiness linked to one’s relative standing. As the social critic H. L. Mencken long ago observed, "A wealthy man is one who earns $100 a year more than his wife's sister's husband."

SOURCES: Daniel Gilbert, Stumbling On Happiness, (New York: Knopf, 2006); Marina Kamenev, “Rating Countries for the Happiness Factor,” Business Week, 11 October 2006; Angus Deaton, “Income, Aging, Health, and Wellbeing Around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll,” Princeton Working Paper, (August 2007); and “Where Money Seems to Talk,” Economist, 12 July 200

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in