The Hidden Hazards Of Moral Risk In Insurance: Unraveling The Complexities

Moral hazard is a situation in which a party has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it does not bear the full costs of that risk. Moral hazard can occur when there is an information asymmetry between two parties to a transaction, with one party knowing more about its intentions than the other. This can lead to the risk-taking party behaving in a way that negatively affects the cost-bearing party.

Moral hazard is particularly relevant in the insurance industry, where it refers to the risk that an insured person will act in a riskier manner because they know their insurer will cover any losses. For example, a person with car insurance may be less careful about locking their car because they know the insurance company will pay for any theft. Moral hazard can also occur in employer-employee relationships and in lending and investing.

Moral hazard in insurance vs adverse selection

Moral hazard and adverse selection are both terms used in economics, risk management, and insurance to describe situations where one party is at a disadvantage due to a lack of information. However, they differ in the timing of when this asymmetry of information is exploited.

Moral hazard occurs when there is asymmetric information between two parties, and a change in behaviour from one party occurs after an agreement is reached. This can happen when one party believes they won't face consequences for their actions. For example, a person with insurance may be more likely to take risks because they believe the insurance company will bear the costs. In the context of insurance, a homeowner without insurance may be diligent in preparing for potential flooding. However, once they purchase flood insurance, they may cancel their home security system and do less to mitigate flood damage, increasing the risk of a claim being filed against the insurance company.

Adverse selection, on the other hand, refers to a situation where there is asymmetric information between a buyer and a seller before a deal is made. Typically, the seller has more information than the buyer about the quality of a product or service. In the insurance context, adverse selection occurs when those in dangerous jobs or high-risk lifestyles purchase life or disability insurance, where the likelihood of claiming benefits is higher. For example, smokers, who have a higher risk of health issues, may be more inclined to purchase health insurance but conceal their smoking status to obtain lower premiums. This increases the average risk for the insurer, who relies on premiums from lower-risk individuals to cover costs.

The key distinction between moral hazard and adverse selection lies in the timing of when the information asymmetry is exploited. In moral hazard, the behaviour change occurs after the agreement is reached, whereas in adverse selection, the asymmetry exists prior to the deal, impacting the decision-making process.

Both concepts have significant implications in various fields, including economics, insurance, and risk management, and understanding them is crucial for recognising and mitigating potential disadvantages arising from information asymmetries.

Moral hazard in health insurance

Moral hazard is a situation where one party has an incentive to use more resources than they otherwise would have because another party is bearing the costs. In health insurance, moral hazard refers to the tendency of consumers to overconsume healthcare once insurance is acquired, as most of the costs are being paid for by someone else. This phenomenon is also known as "ex-post moral hazard".

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare, which was signed into law in 2010, has been criticised for inflating existing moral hazards in the health insurance industry. The Act mandated coverage and community ratings, restricted prices, established minimum standards requirements, and created a limited incentive to compel purchases. These measures further drive a wedge between the consumer and the real cost of health care, resulting in increased premiums.

Strategies to control consumer moral hazard in health insurance include demand-side cost-sharing, health savings accounts, drug price regulation, and rationing of health services. These strategies aim to change consumer behaviour at the time of receiving health services or before needing health services.

Examples of Moral Hazard in Health Insurance

• A person who is nearly full after a meal may still order dessert because the bill is being split evenly among a group, even though they would not be willing to pay the full price for the dessert. This is an example of how cost-sharing can create an incentive for individuals to impose costs on others.
• Under the ACA, individuals who have reached their maximum out-of-pocket costs for health care in a year may be encouraged to book as many medical appointments as possible before the end of the year, as they will not have to pay anything additional. This creates opportunities for healthcare providers to bill the insurance company.
• Obtaining health insurance may reduce an individual's incentive to put effort into maintaining their health, such as exercising, eating healthily, or avoiding risky behaviours. This is because health insurance covers some of the financial costs associated with poor health.
• Healthcare providers may provide more services than necessary to increase their revenue, as they are paid based on the quantity of care delivered rather than the health outcomes of their patients. This is known as provider-induced demand.

Moral hazard and bailouts

Moral hazard is a situation where a party to a contract acts in bad faith or provides misleading information about its assets, liabilities, or credit capacity. It also refers to the incentive to take unusual risks to earn a profit before the contract settles. Moral hazard is common in lending and insurance industries and can also exist in employer-employee relationships.

Bailouts can increase moral hazard in the markets by infusing capital into banks that caused the financial crisis. The bailout fund may help avert a financial system collapse but could reinforce perceptions that the government will step in to keep firms from failing. This can lead to increased risk-taking behaviour by banks, as they expect to be bailed out if they fail.

For example, a study on bank bailouts and moral hazard in Germany found that an increase in bailout expectations by 1% increased risk-taking, measured as the likelihood of distress, by 7.1 basis points. This provides evidence of moral hazard due to bailout expectations.

Similarly, a study on IMF bailouts and moral hazard found that the expectations of IMF lending attenuated the relationship between sovereign bond spreads and country fundamentals, indicating the presence of moral hazard.

The presence of moral hazard in bailouts can be mitigated by supervisory policy and interventions. For instance, the German study found that only supervisory interventions directly targeting bank management and outright restrictions mitigated moral hazard, while weak interventions, such as warnings, did not reduce it.

Moral hazard in sales

Moral hazard is a situation in which one party engages in risky behaviour or fails to act in good faith because they know the other party bears the economic consequences of their behaviour. Moral hazard can occur when two parties enter into an agreement, and one party has more information than the other. Moral hazard can be present in sales when a salesperson is paid a flat salary with no commissions for their sales. In this scenario, the salesperson may not try very hard to sell the business owner's goods because their wage stays the same regardless of how their work benefits the owner. The salesperson is acting in bad faith as they are not doing the job to the best of their ability, and they know the consequences of this decision will be shouldered by the management of the company or the business owner.

To reduce the risk of moral hazard in sales, businesses can implement performance-based incentives, monitoring and screening to align the interests of both parties and reduce the likelihood of risky behaviour. For example, a business owner could pay a salesperson a wage comprised of a salary and commissions. This would give the salesperson more incentive to produce more profits and prevent losses for the company.

Moral hazard in lending

Moral hazard is a situation in which one party engages in risky behaviour or fails to act in good faith because they know the other party bears the economic consequences of their behaviour. Moral hazard can occur in any agreement between two parties.

In lending, moral hazard can occur when a lender makes decisions knowing they won't have to bear the responsibility of the risk. For example, a lender may offer a loan to a borrower who they know is unlikely to be able to pay it back, but they do so anyway because they know that they won't suffer any losses—these will be shouldered by the government or taxpayers.

Moral hazard can also occur when a lender takes on excessive risk because they know they are protected against it. For instance, a lender might lend money to a risky borrower because they know that if the borrower defaults, they will be bailed out by the government. This was seen during the 2008 financial crisis, when the US government bailed out major banks that were sinking under billions of dollars in losses. As a result, banks were given the impression that the government would always be there to rescue them, leading to a moral hazard situation. The banks were then more likely to continue making risky loans if doing so offered temporary gains.

Moral hazard can be mitigated in lending through the use of collateral, covenants, and frequent performance reporting. Lenders can also require borrowers to have skin in the game by taking on some of the risk themselves, such as through a down payment or equity ownership. This reduces the lender's exposure to risk and gives the borrower an incentive to act responsibly.

Frequently asked questions