Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Econ Behav Organ. 2015 Nov 1;119:72–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2015.07.009

Table A.1.

Out-of-pocket cost estimates, non-premium spending, for MA PFFS plans offered in 2007.

Age group and health status Mean, TM Mean, MA PFFS 1st percentile 25th percentile 50th percentile 75th percentile 99th percentile
Ages 65–69
  Excellent 77 59 31 50 60 70 72
  Very good 90 69 38 57 70 82 82
  Good 103 74 29 58 74 91 91
  Fair 195 119 32 91 133 133 202
  Poor 281 181 29 157 210 220 369
Ages 70–74
  Excellent 81 62 34 52 64 73 74
  Very good 103 77 36 62 77 91 94
  Good 119 87 35 70 90 104 107
  Fair 231 167 65 135 187 187 250
  Poor 314 215 81 192 244 249 327
Ages 75–79
  Excellent 100 75 37 63 75 89 89
  Very good 99 72 28 56 74 89 91
  Good 135 95 33 76 98 116 127
  Fair 174 112 23 91 126 137 183
  Poor 245 167 29 137 187 198 307
Ages 80–84
  Excellent 104 75 36 61 77 89 91
  Very good 107 78 27 61 82 94 107
  Good 141 96 28 76 108 115 146
  Fair 188 134 27 112 157 158 247
  Poor 278 180 29 162 205 205 343
Ages 85-plus
  Excellent 103 76 22 57 85 90 120
  Very good 123 87 27 71 101 101 135
  Good 129 86 19 69 97 102 136
  Fair 161 116 15 97 132 140 205
  Poor 265 206 93 197 216 222 323

Note: This table presents enrollment-weighted descriptive statistics on the non-premium out-of-pocket cost for the 338 MA PFFS plans that were offered in 2007, separated by age group and health status group. The first column of the table presents the OOPC estimate for TM enrollees. For every age-health status cell, the OOPC associated with the 75th percentile MA PFFS plan is lower than the TM OOPC. The estimates indicate that for those in fair or poor health, OOPC was higher under the least generous MA plans.