Abstract
AbstractThe employer‐sponsored life insurance (ESLI) market is susceptible to adverse selection due to community‐rated premiums, guaranteed issue coverage, and the existence of an individual market. Using payroll and healthcare claims data from a large university, we find that employees with worse health are more likely to elect coverage causing adverse selection in supplemental ESLI. Nonetheless, we find employees typically do not increase coverage following a severe illness even when they can without providing evidence of insurability. Furthermore, demand estimation shows employees are not price‐sensitive and estimated increases in premiums from adverse selection are unlikely to cause significant welfare loss.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
