When to Limit Market Entry under Mandatory Purchase

Abstract

We study a problem inspired by regulated health insurance markets, such as those created by the government in the Affordable Care Act Exchanges or by employers when they contract with private insurers to provide plans for their employees. The market regulator can choose to do nothing, running a Free Market, or can exercise her regulatory power by limiting the entry of providers (decreasing consumer welfare by limiting options, but also decreasing revenue via enhanced competition). We investigate whether limiting entry increases or decreases the utility (welfare minus revenue) of the consumers who purchase from the providers, specifically in settings where the outside option of "purchasing nothing" is prohibitively undesirable. We focus primarily on the case where providers are symmetric. We propose a sufficient condition on the distribution of consumer values for (a) a unique symmetric equilibrium to exist in both markets and (b) utility to be higher with limited entry. (We also establish that these conclusions do not necessarily hold for all distributions, and therefore some condition is necessary.) Our techniques are primarily based on tools from revenue maximization, and in particular Myerson's virtual value theory. We also consider extensions to settings where providers have identical costs for providing plans, and to two providers with an asymmetric distribution.