You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Adverse and Advantageous Selection in the Medicare Supplemental Market: A Bayesian Analysis of Prescription drug Expenditure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health economics (Online), December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/hec.3133 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qian Li, Pravin K Trivedi |
| Abstract |
This paper develops an extended specification of the two-part model, which controls for unobservable self-selection and heterogeneity of health insurance, and analyzes the impact of Medicare supplemental plans on the prescription drug expenditure of the elderly, using a linked data set based on the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data for 2003-2004. The econometric analysis is conducted using a Bayesian econometric framework. We estimate the treatment effects for different counterfactuals and find significant evidence of endogeneity in plan choice and the presence of both adverse and advantageous selections in the supplemental insurance market. The average incentive effect is estimated to be $757 (2004 value) or 41% increase per person per year for the elderly enrolled in supplemental plans with drug coverage against the Medicare fee-for-service counterfactual and is $350 or 21% against the supplemental plans without drug coverage counterfactual. The incentive effect varies by different sources of drug coverage: highest for employer-sponsored insurance plans, followed by Medigap and managed medicare plans. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 35% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,387,928
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Health economics (Online)
#1,964
of 2,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,925
of 368,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health economics (Online)
#19
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.