The employer-sponsored life insurance (ESLI) market is particularly susceptible to adverse selection due to community-rated premiums, guaranteed issue coverage, and the existence of a well-functioning individual market as a substitute. Using administrative payroll and healthcare claims data from a large university, we find evidence of adverse selection in the supplemental ESLI market. Employees in worse health, as measured by the Charlson's Comorbidity Index, are more likely to elect coverage than those in better health. Nonetheless, we also find that employees typically do not increase coverage following diagnosis of a severe illness even when they can without providing evidence of insurability. Furthermore, demand estimation shows that employees are not price-sensitive and that the estimated increases in premiums due to adverse selection are unlikely to cause significant welfare loss.
We use cookies to provide you with an optimal website experience. This includes cookies that are necessary for the operation of the site as well as cookies that are only used for anonymous statistical purposes, for comfort settings or to display personalized content. You can decide for yourself which categories you want to allow. Please note that based on your settings, you may not be able to use all of the site's functions.
Cookie settings
These necessary cookies are required to activate the core functionality of the website. An opt-out from these technologies is not available.
In order to further improve our offer and our website, we collect anonymous data for statistics and analyses. With the help of these cookies we can, for example, determine the number of visitors and the effect of certain pages on our website and optimize our content.