Consumer-driven health plans.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Consumer Behavior↗
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “Insurance Selection Bias”
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Pathways to access: health insurance, the health care delivery system, and racial/ethnic disparities, 1996-1999.
We examine the roles that insurance coverage, the delivery system, and external factors play in explaining persistent disparities in access among racial and ethnic groups of all ages. Using data from the 1996-1999 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys and regression-based decomposition methods, we find that our measures of health care system capacity explain little and that while insurance clearly matters, external factors are equally important. Employment, job characteristics, and marital status are key determinants of disparities in access to insurance but are difficult for health policy to affect directly. Much of existing disparities remains unexplained, presenting a challenge to developing policies to eliminate them.
Black or African American↗
How does the employer contribution for the federal employees health benefits program influence plan selection?
Market reform of health insurance is proposed to increase coverage and reduce growth in spending by providing an incentive to choose low-cost plans. However, having a choice of plans could result in risk segmentation. Risk-adjusted payments have been proposed to address risk segmentation but are criticized as ineffective. An alternative to risk adjustment is to subsidize premiums, as in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Subsidizing premiums may also increase total premium spending. We find that there is little risk segmentation in the FEHBP and that reducing the premium subsidy would lower government premium spending and slightly increase risk segmentation.
Adult↗
The curious conversion of Empire Blue Cross.
The for-profit conversion of Empire Blue Cross in New York challenges the case law and conventional policy wisdom that financial assets from formerly nonprofit organizations should be used to endow independent charitable foundations. The appropriation of Empire's assets by state government itself, and their subsequent deployment to subsidize health care institutions and repay political obligations, changes the conversion process from one that pits nonprofits against for-profits to one that pits private, nonprofit organizations against public-sector programs in the competition for new financial resources.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Insurance Plans↗
Harm from unadjusted data?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.↗
Consumer-directed health care: early evidence about effects on cost and quality.
Demand for consumer-directed health care (CDHC) is growing among purchasers of care, and early evidence about its effects is beginning to emerge. Studies to date are consistent with effects predicted by earlier literature: There is evidence of modest favorable health selection and early reports that consumer-directed plans are associated with both lower costs and lower cost increases. The early effects of CDHC on quality are mixed, with evidence of both appropriate and inappropriate changes in care use. Greater information about prices, quality, and treatment choices will be critical if CDHC is to achieve its goals.
Consumer Behavior↗
Consumer-driven health plans: are they more than talk now?
This paper reports marketplace developments for consumer-driven health plans in spring 2002. Findings are from interviews with executives from start-up and health insurance firms, benefit consultants, employee benefit managers, Wall Street analysts, consumer organizations, thought leaders, and policymakers. We detail available evidence about the performance of consumer-driven health plans concerning access to care, risk selection, cost containment, use of information, and legal issues. We find that these health plans are now a central pillar of health insurers' business strategy and that an estimated 1.5 million persons are enrolled in them.
Community Participation↗
Medicaid managed care in New York City: recent performance and coming challenges.
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated New York City's voluntary Medicaid managed care program in terms of health care use and access. METHODS: A survey of adults in Medicaid managed care and fee-for-service programs during 1996-1997 was analyzed. RESULTS: Responses showed significant favorable risk selection into managed care but little difference in use of health care services. Although some measures of access favored managed care, many others showed no difference between the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The early impact of mandatory enrollment will probably include an increase in the average risk of managed care enrollees with little change in beneficiary use and access to care.
Adolescent↗
Expanding access through public coverage: permitting families to use tax credits to buy into Medicaid or SCHIP.
A new tax credit to help low-income families and individuals purchase health insurance can address the problem of affordability, but will not overcome other barriers these populations face in obtaining coverage. This paper proposes that families have the option of using a new tax credit to buy into a state-administered system such as Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This option has three advantages. First, it allows families to remain with a single health program and health plan as their income fluctuates. Second, it provides an alternative to the complex and confusing individual insurance market. This alternative is community rated, does not use underwriting, and allows health plan behavior to be monitored closely by the state. Third, it allows the state to act as a financial buffer-helping overcome the barrier to participation that cash-flow problems and year-end reconciliation concerns are likely to create among a low-income population. Many people would want to use their tax credit in the private market, but the buy-in option increases the likelihood that the tax credit approach would succeed.
Adult↗
Private purchasing pools to harness individual tax credits for consumers.
While health insurance tax credits could help people who otherwise could not afford to purchase coverage, many might still find individual coverage too expensive and its marketplace dynamics bewildering. As an alternative, this paper outlines an approach using private purchasing pools for tax-credit recipients. The objective is to offer these individuals and families a choice among competing health plans, and provide many of the same advantages enjoyed by workers in large employer groups, such as relatively low administrative costs, no health rating, and an effective "sponsor." Some express optimism that private pools will emerge naturally and thrive as an option for individual tax-credit recipients. However, adverse selection and other individual health insurance market forces make this a dubious prospect. The approach presented here gives purchasing pools the same tool employer groups use to maintain stability and cohesion--a significant contribution that cannot be used elsewhere. The ability to offer health plans exclusive access to a sizable new, previously uninsured clientele--tax-credit recipients-would enable purchasing pools to attract health plan participation and thus overcome one major reason several state-directed pools for small employers have failed. To avoid other pitfalls, the paper also suggests private pool structures, as well as federal and state roles that seek to balance objectives for market innovation and choice with those for coverage-source stability and efficiency.
Economic Competition↗
A workable solution for the pre-Medicare population.
Incremental reforms to expand health coverage among older Americans are justified by medical spending that increases with age and enrollment in employer insurance that decreases with age. Older Americans are also at risk of unexpected changes in health, access to health insurance, and earnings that could leave them poorly positioned financially for their retirement years. We propose offering universal access to Medicare at a community-rated premium, with premium vouchers for those with a history of low lifetime earnings and tax-preferred savings accounts to help everyone with the increased cost of insurance at older ages. These subsidies are available for coverage obtained from sources other than Medicare. We would set the eligibility age for the buy-in at 62. However, because enrollment in employer insurance does not drop precipitously at age 62, we regard the eligibility age as an adjustable design element that could resize the program to fit political and budgetary constraints.
Age Factors↗
Risk adjustment in the private sector.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Fees and Charges↗
Why don't private employers use risk adjustment? Conference overview.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Fees and Charges↗
The prevalence of formal risk adjustment in health plan purchasing.
This paper describes the prevalence of formal risk adjustment of payments made to health plans by Medicare, Medicaid, state governments, and private payers. In this paper, 'formal risk adjustment" is defined as the adjustment of premiums paid to health plans based on individual-level diagnostic or demographic information. We find that formal risk adjustment is used for about one-fifth of all enrollees in capitated health plans. While the Medicare and Medicaid programs rely on formal risk adjustment for virtually all their health plan enrollees, the practice is used for only about 1% of privately insured health plan enrollees. Ourfindings raise the question of why regulators have adopted formal risk adjustment, but private purchasers for the most part have not.
Diffusion of Innovation↗
Private employers don't need formal risk adjustment.
This paper lays down a set of hypotheses to explain why private employers do not use formal risk adjustment. The theme running through these hypotheses is simple: private employers don't need formal adjustment because they have better tools for dealing with adverse selection than formal risk adjustment provides. Open enrollment provisions, premium negotiations, and restricting employees' choices of health plans are mechanisms superior to formal risk adjustment for dealing with problems caused by adverse selection.
Community Participation↗
Designing employer health benefits for a heterogeneous workforce: risk adjustment and its alternatives.
Many health economists recommend that employers provide employees with a risk-adjusted choice among competing health insurance plans. However, formal risk adjustment is rarely if ever used by employers. This paper examines a range of health benefit design options available to employers, focusing attention not only on risk adjustment but also on its alternatives. We argue that while formal risk adjustment is rare, employers commonly use strategies that accomplish some of the same objectives at less cost.
Actuarial Analysis↗
A demand-side view of risk adjustment.
This paper analyzes the efficient allocation of consumers to health plans. Specifically, we address the question of why employers that offer multiple health plans often make larger contributions to the premiums of the high-cost plans. Our perspective is that the subsidy for high-cost plans represents a form of demand-side risk adjustment that improves efficiency. Without such subsidies (and in the absence of formal risk adjustment), too few employees would choose the high-cost plans preferred by high-risk workers. We test the theory by estimating a model of the employer premium subsidy, using data from a survey of large public employers in 1994. Our empirical analysis shows that employers are more likely to subsidize high-cost plans when the benefits of risk adjustment are greater. The findings suggest that the premium subsidy can accomplish some of the benefits of formal risk adjustment.
Community Participation↗