{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,5]],"date-time":"2026-01-05T22:01:47Z","timestamp":1767650507412,"version":"3.38.0"},"reference-count":40,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","issue":"5","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2010,3,12]],"date-time":"2010-03-12T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1268352000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/page\/policies\/text-and-data-mining-license"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Med Decis Making"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2010,9]]},"abstract":"<jats:p> Background. The impact of choice on consumer decision making is controversial in US health policy. Objective. The authors\u2019 objective was to determine how choice set size influences decision making among Medicare beneficiaries choosing prescription drug plans. Methods. The authors randomly assigned members of an Internet-enabled panel age 65 and older to sets of prescription drug plans of varying sizes (2, 5, 10, and 16) and asked them to choose a plan. Respondents answered questions about the plan they chose, the choice set, and the decision process. The authors used ordered probit models to estimate the effect of choice set size on the study outcomes. Results. Both the benefits of choice, measured by whether the chosen plan is close to the ideal plan, and the costs, measured by whether the respondent found decision making difficult, increased with choice set size. Choice set size was not associated with the probability of enrolling in any plan. Conclusions. Medicare beneficiaries face a tension between not wanting to choose from too many options and feeling happier with an outcome when they have more alternatives. Interventions that reduce cognitive costs when choice sets are large may make this program more attractive to beneficiaries. <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989x09357793","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2010,3,13]],"date-time":"2010-03-13T03:04:33Z","timestamp":1268449473000},"page":"582-593","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":30,"title":["Choice Set Size and Decision Making: The Case of Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plans"],"prefix":"10.1177","volume":"30","author":[{"given":"M. Kate","family":"Bundorf","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California,"}]},{"given":"Helena","family":"Szrek","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Centre for Finance and Economics, University of Porto, Portugal"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2010,3,12]]},"reference":[{"key":"atypb1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMp058249"},{"volume-title":"The Role of Private Health Plans in Medicare: Lessons from the Past, Looking to the Future. Final Report of Study Panel on Medicare and Markets","year":"2003","author":"National Academy of Social Insurance.","key":"atypb2"},{"key":"atypb3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMp058248"},{"key":"atypb4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1377\/hlthaff.17.6.181"},{"key":"atypb5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1377\/hlthaff.20.3.199"},{"key":"atypb6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/bdm.407"},{"volume-title":"Medicare Prescription Drug Plans in 2009 and Key Changes since 2006: Summary of Findings","year":"2009","author":"Hargrave E.","key":"atypb7"},{"volume-title":"The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less","year":"2004","author":"Schwartz B.","key":"atypb8"},{"key":"atypb9","unstructured":"Frank RG, Newhouse JP Mending the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit: Improving Consumer Choices and Restructuring Purchasing. The Hamilton Project: Advancing Opportunity, Prosperity and Growth. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; April 2007. Report No. 2007-03."},{"volume-title":"Presented at: AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting","author":"Rice T.","key":"atypb10"},{"key":"atypb11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1037\/0022-3514.79.6.995"},{"key":"atypb12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1086\/376808"},{"key":"atypb13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1467-9280.2007.01906.x"},{"key":"atypb14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1086\/588698"},{"key":"atypb15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/mar.20268"},{"key":"atypb16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/0199273391.003.0005"},{"key":"atypb17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1086\/258464"},{"key":"atypb18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/bdm.447"},{"key":"atypb19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1509\/jppm.25.1.24"},{"key":"atypb20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1037\/0022-3514.87.3.312"},{"key":"atypb21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.joep.2008.07.004"},{"volume-title":"Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance","year":"1964","author":"Festinger L","key":"atypb22"},{"key":"atypb23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.joep.2007.02.003"},{"key":"atypb24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2307\/3172740"},{"key":"atypb25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00047.x"},{"key":"atypb26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0010-0277(93)90034-S"},{"key":"atypb27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1086\/209535"},{"key":"atypb28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1037\/0033-2909.125.5.576"},{"key":"atypb29","unstructured":"Loewenstein G. Is More Choice Always Better? Washington, DC: National Academy of Social Insurance ; 1999. Social Security Brief No. 7."},{"key":"atypb30","unstructured":"Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ The use of multiple strategies in judgment and choice. In: Castellan NJ, ed. Individual and Group Decision Making. Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993. p 19-39."},{"key":"atypb31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1207\/s15327663jcp0404_01"},{"key":"atypb32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x"},{"key":"atypb33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2307\/3152089"},{"key":"atypb34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3386\/w12595"},{"key":"atypb35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1539-6975.2009.01338.x"},{"key":"atypb36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1475-6773.2009.00981.x"},{"volume-title":"Misperception in choosing Medicare drug plans","author":"Kling J.","key":"atypb37"},{"key":"atypb38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1377\/hlthaff.25.w344"},{"key":"atypb39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/geronb\/gbp021"},{"key":"atypb40","unstructured":"Lucarelli C. , Prince J., Simon K. Measuring Welfare and the Effects of Regulation in a Government-Created Market: The Case of Medicare Part D Plans. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research ; September 2008. Report No. 14296."}],"container-title":["Medical Decision Making"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/0272989X09357793","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/0272989X09357793","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,3,3]],"date-time":"2025-03-03T20:56:17Z","timestamp":1741035377000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/0272989X09357793"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2010,3,12]]},"references-count":40,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2010,9]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1177\/0272989X09357793"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0272989x09357793","relation":{},"ISSN":["0272-989X","1552-681X"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"0272-989X"},{"type":"electronic","value":"1552-681X"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2010,3,12]]}}}