The impact of insurer competition on welfare, negotiated provider prices, and premiums in the U.S. private health care industry is theoretically ambiguous. Reduced competition may increase the premiums charged by insurers and their payments made to hospitals. However, it may also strengthen insurers' bargaining leverage when negotiating with hospitals, thereby generating offsetting cost decreases. To understand and measure this trade-off, we estimate a model of employer-insurer and hospital-insurer bargaining over premiums and reimbursements, household demand for insurance, and individual demand for hospitals using detailed California admissions, claims, and enrollment data. We simulate the removal of both large and small insurers from consumers' choice sets. Although consumer welfare decreases and premiums typically increase, we find that premiums can fall upon the removal of a small insurer if an employer imposes effective premium constraints through negotiations with the remaining insurers. We also document substantial heterogeneity in hospital price adjustments upon the removal of an insurer, with renegotiated price increases and decreases of as much as 10% across markets.

We investigate how formularies used by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) affect equilibrium manufacturer rebates for branded drugs through tiering and exclusion. We develop a theoretical model of multidimensional contracting in which a PBM negotiates with drug manufacturers over menus of formulary‐contingent rebates and chooses a formulary. We then estimate consumer demand responses to tier placement for statins using claims data from Princeton University, a large employer contracting with a single PBM to offer prescription drug coverage to its employees. Combining the theoretical model with demand estimates and observed list prices, we quantify how allowing for differential tier placement and exclusion affect equilibrium rebates. Our predictions are consistent with available aggregate rebate data, and we find that allowing a PBM to place branded drugs on preferred‐ and non‐preferred tiers can substantially increase negotiated rebate payments.

We investigate the welfare effects of vertical integration of regional sports networks (RSNs) with programming distributors in U.S. multichannel television markets. Vertical integration can enhance efficiency by reducing double marginalization and increasing carriage of channels, but can also harm welfare due to foreclosure and incentives to raise rivals' costs. We estimate a structural model of viewership, subscription, distributor pricing, and affiliate fee bargaining using a rich data set on the U.S. cable and satellite television industry (2000?2010). We use these estimates to analyze the impact of simulated vertical mergers and divestitures of RSNs on competition and welfare, and examine the efficacy of regulatory policies introduced by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to address competition concerns in this industry.