Mispriced Equity: Regulated Rates for Auto Insurance in Massachusetts
描述了马萨诸塞州十多年前实施的类似政策（如费率管制）的后果，指出其他州效仿将导致高成本司机比例增加、保险公司失去承保和控制成本的动力，以及保费与预期成本脱钩削弱对司机的激励。
From the Santa Monica Freeway to the New Jersey Turnpike, drivers are unhappy about the cost of automobile insurance and are asking government to do something about it. California voters approved Proposition 103 in 1988; it requires that all rates be approved by the state insurance commissioner, attempts to reduce rates by 20 percent, and dramatically limits the criteria that can be used to rate drivers for premium purposes. New Jersey enacted an insurance reform law that seeks to charge insurers for a deficit-burdened state underwriting pool and prohibits the use of age, sex, and marital status in rating drivers for premiums. Other states enacting or considering significant rate rollbacks or reform since 1988 include Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. This article describes the current consequences of similar policies adopted in Massachusetts more than a decade ago. The experience suggests that recent moves by other states in the same direction will ultimately prove quite expensive as the proportion of high-cost drivers increases and as insurers lose the incentive to write policies and control costs. The trend away from insurance premiums based on expected cost also reduces incentive effects for drivers, since insurance premiums provide a link between tort judgments and consumer decisions.