已婚夫妇之间的长期护理保险:不能只保一个?

IF 2.2 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Review of Economics of the Household Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-23 DOI:10.1007/s11150-025-09779-0
Norma B Coe, R Tamara Konetzka, Chuxuan Sun, Courtney Harold Van Houtven
{"title":"已婚夫妇之间的长期护理保险:不能只保一个?","authors":"Norma B Coe, R Tamara Konetzka, Chuxuan Sun, Courtney Harold Van Houtven","doi":"10.1007/s11150-025-09779-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although long-term care remains one of the largest uninsured risks facing older Americans, demand for insurance remains low. While there is a long literature estimating a variety of factors that contribute to this low demand, much of it has overlooked the fact that most private long-term care insurance (LTCI) purchases are made within couples, adding a host of additional reasons for low demand. This paper examines the role of financial decision-making power within the couple and the association with LTCI purchase decisions. We document LTCI purchase patterns among married couples and find that, among couples who ever purchase LTCI, they are roughly equally likely to purchase for the woman exclusively (10.0%), the man exclusively (11%), or both (11%). However, among couples where women have more bargaining power, LTCI purchases are more likely overall (40% vs. 33%), and more likely to cover the woman, either exclusively (16% vs. 11%) or as part of both members of the couple (14% vs. 11%), than among couples with more traditional gender roles. In adjusted analyses, we find that women are more likely to be insured when they have more bargaining power. These findings suggest that intra-household bargaining power may be another potential explanation for the particularly low LTCI take-up, especially in the time period in which policies were unisex-priced.</p>","PeriodicalId":47111,"journal":{"name":"Review of Economics of the Household","volume":"23 4","pages":"1189-1220"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12602659/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-term care insurance within married couples: Can't insure one without the other?\",\"authors\":\"Norma B Coe, R Tamara Konetzka, Chuxuan Sun, Courtney Harold Van Houtven\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11150-025-09779-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although long-term care remains one of the largest uninsured risks facing older Americans, demand for insurance remains low. While there is a long literature estimating a variety of factors that contribute to this low demand, much of it has overlooked the fact that most private long-term care insurance (LTCI) purchases are made within couples, adding a host of additional reasons for low demand. This paper examines the role of financial decision-making power within the couple and the association with LTCI purchase decisions. We document LTCI purchase patterns among married couples and find that, among couples who ever purchase LTCI, they are roughly equally likely to purchase for the woman exclusively (10.0%), the man exclusively (11%), or both (11%). However, among couples where women have more bargaining power, LTCI purchases are more likely overall (40% vs. 33%), and more likely to cover the woman, either exclusively (16% vs. 11%) or as part of both members of the couple (14% vs. 11%), than among couples with more traditional gender roles. In adjusted analyses, we find that women are more likely to be insured when they have more bargaining power. These findings suggest that intra-household bargaining power may be another potential explanation for the particularly low LTCI take-up, especially in the time period in which policies were unisex-priced.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Economics of the Household\",\"volume\":\"23 4\",\"pages\":\"1189-1220\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12602659/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Economics of the Household\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-025-09779-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Economics of the Household","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-025-09779-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管长期护理仍然是美国老年人面临的最大的无保险风险之一,但对保险的需求仍然很低。虽然有很长的文献估计了导致这种低需求的各种因素,但其中大部分都忽略了这样一个事实,即大多数私人长期护理保险(LTCI)的购买都是在夫妻之间进行的,这为低需求增加了许多其他原因。本文考察了夫妻财务决策权的作用及其与LTCI购买决策的关系。我们记录了已婚夫妇购买LTCI的模式,发现在曾经购买LTCI的夫妇中,他们为女性(10.0%),男性(11%)或两者(11%)购买LTCI的可能性大致相同。然而,在女性议价能力更强的夫妇中,LTCI购买的可能性更大(40%对33%),而且更有可能包括女性,要么是单独的(16%对11%),要么是夫妻双方的一部分(14%对11%),而不是更传统的性别角色。在调整后的分析中,我们发现当女性拥有更多的议价能力时,她们更有可能被保险。这些发现表明,家庭内部议价能力可能是LTCI使用率特别低的另一个潜在解释,特别是在政策不分性别定价的时期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Long-term care insurance within married couples: Can't insure one without the other?

Although long-term care remains one of the largest uninsured risks facing older Americans, demand for insurance remains low. While there is a long literature estimating a variety of factors that contribute to this low demand, much of it has overlooked the fact that most private long-term care insurance (LTCI) purchases are made within couples, adding a host of additional reasons for low demand. This paper examines the role of financial decision-making power within the couple and the association with LTCI purchase decisions. We document LTCI purchase patterns among married couples and find that, among couples who ever purchase LTCI, they are roughly equally likely to purchase for the woman exclusively (10.0%), the man exclusively (11%), or both (11%). However, among couples where women have more bargaining power, LTCI purchases are more likely overall (40% vs. 33%), and more likely to cover the woman, either exclusively (16% vs. 11%) or as part of both members of the couple (14% vs. 11%), than among couples with more traditional gender roles. In adjusted analyses, we find that women are more likely to be insured when they have more bargaining power. These findings suggest that intra-household bargaining power may be another potential explanation for the particularly low LTCI take-up, especially in the time period in which policies were unisex-priced.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
3.90%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The Review of Economics of the Household publishes high-quality empirical and theoretical research on the economic behavior and decision-making processes of single and multi-person households. The Review is not wedded to any particular models or methods. It welcomes both macro-economic and micro-level applications. Household decisions analyzed in this journal include ·         household production of human capital, health, nutrition/food, childcare, and eldercare, ·         well-being of persons living in households, issues of gender and power, ·         fertility and risky behaviors, ·         consumption, savings and wealth accumulation, ·         labor force participation and time use,·         household formation (including marriage, cohabitation and fertility) and dissolution,·         migration, intergenerational transfers,·         experiments involving households,·         religiosity and civility.The journal is particularly interested in policy-relevant economic analyses and equally interested in applications to countries at various levels of economic development. The Perspectives section covers articles on the history of economic thought and review articles. Officially cited as: Rev Econ Household
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书