2001-frank.pdf: “Prescription Drug Prices: Why Do Some Pay More Than Others Do?”, (2001-03-01; ):
The fact that sick elderly people without prescription drug coverage pay far more for drugs than do people with private health insurance has created a call for state and federal governments to take action. Antitrust cases have been launched, state price control legislation has been enacted, and proposals for expansion of Medicare have been offered in response to price and spending levels for prescription drugs.
This paper offers an analysis aimed at understanding pricing patterns of brand-name prescription drugs. I focus on the basic economic forces that enable differential pricing of products to exist and show how features of the prescription drug market promote such phenomena. The analysis directs policy attention toward how purchasing practices can be changed to better represent groups that pay the most and are most disadvantaged.
[Keywords: prescription drugs, markets, formularies, Health maintenance organizations (HMOs), managed care, brand-name drugs, prescription drug costs, pharmacy benefit managers, elderly care, co-payments]
2002-gilbert.pdf: “Decisions and revisions: The affective forecasting of changeable outcomes”, (2002-01-01; ):
People prefer to make changeable decisions rather than unchangeable decisions because they do not realize that they may be more satisfied with the latter. Photography students believed that having the opportunity to change their minds about which prints to keep would not influence their liking of the prints. However, those who had the opportunity to change their minds liked their prints less than those who did not (Study 1). Although the opportunity to change their minds impaired the post-decisional processes that normally promote satisfaction (Study 2a), most participants wanted to have that opportunity (Study 2b). The results demonstrate that errors in affective forecasting can lead people to behave in ways that do not optimize their happiness and well-being.
The present experiment determined whether preference for consonant or dissonant information differs when (a) decisions are reversible instead of irreversible, and (b) when different amounts of dissonance are induced. Dissonance was manipulated by having subjects make decisions between alternatives with varying degrees of similarity in attractiveness. Subjects’ preference for consonant information was generally stronger after making irreversible decisions than after making reversible ones. When decisions were irreversible, the relative preference for consonant over dissonant information increased with the similarity in attractiveness of the decision alternatives. When decisions were reversible, the relative preference for consonant information decreased with the similarity in attractiveness of the alternatives. In accordance to earlier investigations on selective exposure, experimental manipulation did not affect the avoidance of dissonance information. The results are interpreted in terms of both dissonance theory and choice certainty theory.