Abstract Close elections are important for many reasons, including that consequent election disputes can weaken democratic legitimacy and risk political violence. We quantify the probability of close outcomes in U.S. presidential races with novel applications of empirical election models from several sources. We show that razor-thin margins are very likely under the Electoral College (EC). And we establish that the EC causes this closeness: It would not occur under any plausibly comparable popular vote system. The tendency of the EC to generate close elections is found today and throughout U.S. presidential voting history.

In most US health insurance markets, plans face strong incentives to "upcode" the patient diagnoses they report to the regulator, as these affect the risk-adjusted payments plans receive. We show that enrollees in private Medicare plans generate 6% to 16% higher diagnosis-based risk scores than they would under fee-for-service Medicare, where diagnoses do not affect most provider payments. Our estimates imply that upcoding generates billions in excess public spending and significant distortions to firm and consumer behavior. We show that coding intensity increases with vertical integration, suggesting a principal-agent problem faced by insurers, who desire more intense coding from the providers with whom they contract.

A central question in the debate over privatized Medicare is whether increased government payments to private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans generate lower premiums for consumers or higher profits for producers. Using difference‑in‑differences variation brought about by a sharp legislative change, we find that MA insurers pass through 45 percent of increased payments in lower premiums and an additional 9 percent in more generous benefits. We show that advantageous selection into MA cannot explain this incomplete pass‑through. Instead, our evidence suggests that market power is important, with premium pass‑through rates of 13 percent in the least competitive markets and 74 percent in the most competitive.

Insurance markets often feature consumer sorting along both an extensive margin (whether to buy) and an intensive margin (which plan to buy). We present a new graphical theoretical framework that extends a workhorse model to incorporate both selection margins simultaneously. A key insight from our framework is that policies aimed at addressing one margin of selection often involve an economically meaningful trade-off on the other margin in terms of prices, enrollment, and welfare. Using data from Massachusetts, we illustrate these trade-offs in an empirical sufficient statistics approach that is tightly linked to the graphical framework we develop.

This paper examines the effects of privatizing social health insurance in the United States. We study this question in the context of the Medicaid program, the largest health insurer in the US and the largest means-tested program in the nation -serving over 90 million low-income families and individuals with disabilities. Exploiting a natural experiment wherein nearly 100,000 Medicaid enrollees were randomly assigned between a state-administered fee-for-service system and private managed care, we find that spending was nearly 10% lower for enrollees assigned to managed care plans. These savings were concentrated in prescription drugs, where we show that prior authorization was the key mechanism plans used to reduce overuse and encourage substitution to lower-cost alternatives without reducing quality. This was distinct from the effects of privatization on medical benefits, where private plans lowered quality and abraded consumers without achieving savings. In contrast to what our findings imply for an efficient public-private division of services, Medicaid has historically favored the public provision of prescription drugs and private outsourcing of medical care.