title'THE WELFARE IMPACT OF REDUCING CHOICE IN MEDICARE PART D: A COMPARISON OF TWO REGULATION STRATEGIES'author'Claudio Lucarelli and Jeffrey Prince and Kosali Simon'url'http://www.jstor.org/stable/23352337'abstract'Motivated by widely publicized concerns that there are "too many" plans, we structurally estimate (and validate) an equilibrium model of the Medicare Part D market to study the welfare impacts of two feasible, similar-sized approaches for reducing choice. One reduces the maximum number of firm offerings regionally; the other removes plans providing donut hole coverage—consumers' most valued dimension. We find welfare losses are far smaller when coupled with elimination of a dimension of differentiation. We illustrate our findings' relevance under current health care reforms, and consider the merits of instead imposing ex ante competition for entry.'journal'International Economic Review'year'2012'Undefined'00206598, 14682354''4''1155--1177''[Economics Department of the University of Pennsylvania, Wiley, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University]''53'