A review of previous analyses of labor supply effects of Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) concludes that estimates of labor supply effects and net social costs are upward biased because they ignore interactions between DI and other insurances. A model of optimal insurance, postinjury accommodations, and labor supply shows that reduction in labor supply and increase in consumption when disabled do not necessarily imply moral hazard. Optimal postinjury accommodations vary inversely with firm size. The Americans with Disabilities Act will reduce wages and labor supply of healthy workers, particularly in small firms. Effects on labor supply of the disabled are ambiguous.

This paper develops a model of price determination in insurance markets. Insurance is provided by firms that are subject to default risk. Demand for insurance is inversely related to insurer default risk and is imperfectly price elastic because of information asymmetries and private information in insurance markets. The model predicts that the price of insurance, measured by the ratio of premiums to discounted losses, is inversely related to insurer default risk and that insurers have optimal capital structures. Price may increase or decrease following a loss shock that depletes the insurer's capital, depending on factors such as the effect of the shock on the price elasticity of demand. Empirical tests using firm-level data support the hypothesis that the price of insurance is inversely related to insurer default risk and provide evidence that prices declined in response to the loss shocks of the mid-1980s.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: G22, G32, G33.

Prior work suggests that heterogeneous information or weak incentives for solvency could have caused some general liability insurers to charge low ex ante prices during the early 1980s and mid-to-late 1990s, putting downward pressure on other firms’ prices and plausibly aggravating subsequent periods of rapid premium growth. We analyse whether the 1994–1999 “soft” market in medical malpractice insurance led some firms to underprice, grow rapidly, and subsequently experience upward revisions in loss forecasts (“loss development”), which could have aggravated subsequent market “crises”. Consistent with the underpricing hypothesis, the results indicate a positive relation between loss development and premium growth among growing firms. Underpricing was likely more prevalent among non-specialist malpractice insurers.