Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16240951

Downsizing health coverage.

Howard Larkin
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The crushing cost of insurance is fundamentally changing U.S. health care. Companies shift costs to employees, but low-wage workers often can't absorb them. Hospitals struggle to provide equitable care to all in the face of a payment system that seems to encourage rationing by income and insurance status. Have we reached the tipping point?

Explore related subjects

Cost SharingEmployer Health CostsFinancial Management, HospitalHealth Benefit Plans, EmployeeHealth Services AccessibilityIndustryInsurance CoverageUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Howard Larkin. 2005. Downsizing health coverage.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16240951/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Medicaid program; state allotments for payment of Medicare Part B premiums for qualifying individuals: federal fiscal year 2006. Interim final rule with comment period.

This interim final rule with comment period sets forth the methodology and process used to compute and issue each State's allotment for fiscal year (FY) 2006 and FY 2007 that is available to pay Medicare Part B premiums for qualifying individuals. It also provides the preliminary FY 2006 allotments determined under this methodology.

Cost Sharing↗
PubMed2006

Behavioral health insurance parity for federal employees.

BACKGROUND: To improve insurance coverage of mental health and substance-abuse services, the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program offered mental health and substance-abuse benefits on a par with general medical benefits beginning in January 2001. The plans were encouraged to manage care. METHODS: We compared seven FEHB plans from 1999 through 2002 with a matched set of health plans that did not have benefits on a par with mental health and substance-abuse benefits (parity of mental health and substance-abuse benefits). Using a difference-in-differences analysis, we compared the claims patterns of matched pairs of FEHB and control plans by examining the rate of use, total spending, and out-of-pocket spending among users of mental health and substance-abuse services. RESULTS: The difference-in-differences analysis indicated that the observed increase in the rate of use of mental health and substance-abuse services after the implementation of the parity policy was due almost entirely to a general trend in increased use that was observed in comparison health plans as well as FEHB plans. The implementation of parity was associated with a statistically significant increase in use in one plan (+0.78 percent, P<0.05) a significant decrease in use in one plan (-0.96 percent, P<0.05), and no significant difference in use in the other five plans (range, -0.38 percent to +0.23 percent; P>0.05 for each comparison). For beneficiaries who used mental health and substance-abuse services, spending attributable to the implementation of parity decreased significantly for three plans (range, -201.99 dollars to -68.97 dollars; P<0.05 for each comparison) and did not change significantly for four plans (range, -42.13 dollars to +27.11 dollars; P>0.05 for each comparison). The implementation of parity was associated with significant reductions in out-of-pocket spending in five of seven plans. CONCLUSIONS: When coupled with management of care, implementation of parity in insurance benefits for behavioral health care can improve insurance protection without increasing total costs.

Cost Sharing↗