Consumers’ misunderstanding of health insurance

We report results from two surveys of representative samples of Americans with private health insurance. The first examines how well Americans understand, and believe they understand, traditional health insurance coverage. The second examines whether those insured under a simplified all-copay insurance plan will be more likely to engage in cost-reducing behaviors relative to those insured under a traditional plan with deductibles and coinsurance, and measures consumer preferences between the two plans. The surveys provide strong evidence that consumers do not understand traditional plans and would better understand a simplified plan, but weaker evidence that a simplified plan would have strong appeal to consumers or change their healthcare choices.     

How risky is individual health insurance?

This paper describes the relationship between type of insurance coverage in one period and the likelihood of becoming uninsured in the next. We find that for people at the median health status, becoming uninsured is most likely for those with individual insurance, less likely for those with small-group insurance, and least likely for those with large-group insurance. However, for people in poor or fair health, the chances of losing coverage are much greater for people who had small-group insurance than for those who had individual insurance. We attribute these results to the offsetting effects of high loadings and guaranteed renewability in the individual market.     

How much might universal health insurance reduce socioeconomic disparities in health?

A strong association between lower socioeconomic status and worse health has been documented within many countries, but little work has been done to compare the strength of this relationship across countries. We compare the strength of the relationship between income and self-reported health in the US and Canada. We find that being below median income raises the likelihood that a middle-aged person is in poor or fair health by about 15 percentage points in the US, compared with less than 8 percentage points in Canada. We also find that this 7 percentage points stronger relationship between low income and poor health in the US compared with Canada is reduced by about 4 percentage points after age 65, the age at which virtually all US citizens receive basic health insurance through the Medicare programme. Income differences in the probability that an individual lacks a usual source of care are also significantly larger in the US than in Canada before the age of 65, but about the same after age 65. Our results are therefore consistent with the theory that the availability of universal health insurance in the US, or at least some other difference that occurs around the age of 65 in one country but not the other, decreases the difference in the strength of the income-health relationship in the US compared with Canada.     

Why did employee health insurance contributions rise?

We explore the causes of the dramatic rise in employee contributions to health insurance over the past two decades. In 1982, 44% of those who were covered by their employer-provided health insurance had their costs fully financed by their employer, but by 1998 this had fallen to 28%. We discuss the theory of why employers might shift premiums to their employees, and empirically model the role of four factors suggested by the theory. We find that there was a large impact of falling tax rates, rising eligibility for insurance through the Medicaid system, rising medical costs, and increased managed care penetration. Overall, this set of factors can explain more than one-half of the rise in employee premiums over the 1982-1996 period.     

Is health insurance affordable for the uninsured?

In this paper, we investigate the meaning of "affordability" in the context of health insurance. Assessing the relationship between the affordability of coverage and the large number of uninsured in the U.S. is important for understanding the barriers to purchasing coverage and evaluating the role of policy in reducing the number of uninsured. We propose several definitions of affordability and examine the implications of alternative definitions for estimates of the proportion of uninsured who are unable to afford coverage. We find that, depending on the definition, health insurance was affordable to between one-quarter and three-quarters of the uninsured in the United States in 2000.     

Does universal health insurance make health care unaffordable? Lessons from Taiwan

This paper examines the performance of Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI), a universal health insurance program, implemented in 1995, that covers comprehensive services. The authors address two key questions: Did the NHI cause Taiwanese health spending to escalate to an "unaffordable" level? What are the benefits of the NHI? They find that Taiwan's single-payer NHI system enabled Taiwan to manage health spending inflation and that the resulting savings largely offset the incremental cost of covering the previously uninsured. Under the NHI, the Taiwanese have more equal access to health care, greater financial risk protection, and equity in health care financing. The NHI consistently receives a 70 percent public satisfaction rate.     

Can insurance increase financial risk? The curious case of health insurance in China

We analyze the effect of insurance on the probability of an individual incurring ‘high’ annual health expenses using data from three household surveys. All come from China, a country where providers are paid fee-for-service according to a schedule that encourages the overprovision of high-tech care and who are only lightly regulated. We define annual spending as ‘high’ if it exceeds a threshold of local average income and as ‘catastrophic’ if it exceeds a threshold of the household's own per capita income. Our estimates allow for different thresholds and for the possible endogeneity of health insurance (we use instrumental variables and fixed effects). Our main results suggest that in all three surveys health insurance increases the risk of high and catastrophic spending. Further analysis suggests that this is due to insurance encouraging people to seek care when sick and to seek care from higher-level providers.     

Public and private health insurance premiums: how do they affect the health insurance status of low-income childless adults?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will substantially increase public health insurance eligibility and alter the costs of insurance coverage. Using Current Population Survey (CPS) data from the period 2000-2008, we examine the effects of public and private health insurance premiums on the insurance status of low-income childless adults, a population substantially affected by the ACA. Results show higher public premiums to be associated with a decrease in the probability of having public insurance and an increase in the probability of being uninsured, while increased private premiums decrease the probability of having private insurance. Eligibility for premium assistance programs and increased subsidy levels are associated with lower rates of uninsurance. The magnitudes of the effects are quite modest and provide important implications for insurance expansions for childless adults under the ACA.     

Whither private health insurance? Self-destruction or rebirth?

The American public increasingly finds itself disenchanted with the system for health care financing in this country. Three forms of reform proposal are examined: those that place the locus of primary responsibility for health insurance coverage on the individual, those that would rely on employer mandates with patients and government bearing the residual responsibility, and those that lodge chief financial responsibility with the government, and act as primary agent for cost control. The second approach, government-mandated employer-provided health insurance, appears to be the most politically viable at this time. However, that option is likely to be acceptable to the business community only if the mandate is coupled with additional regulation of private health insurance. Specifically, private health insurance in such a system likely would be based on mandatory open enrollment, community-rated premiums, and all-payer reimbursement, under which every payer pays a given provider the same fee for the same service.     

What should (public) health insurance cover?

In any system of health insurance, a decision must be made about what treatments the insurance should cover. One way to make this decision is to rank treatments by their ratios of health benefits to treatment costs. If treatments that are not offered by the health insurance can be purchased out of pocket, the socially optimal ranking of treatments to be included in the health insurance is different from this standard cost-effectiveness rule. It is no longer necessarily true that treatments should be ranked higher the lower are treatment costs (for given health benefits). Moreover, the larger are the costs per treatment for a given benefit-cost ratio, the higher priority should the treatment be given. If the health budget in a public health system does not exceed the socially optimal size, treatments with sufficiently low costs should not be performed by the public health system if treatment may be purchased privately out of pocket.     

Does extending health insurance coverage to the uninsured improve population health outcomes?

Background

An ongoing debate exists about whether the US should adopt a universal health insurance programme. Much of the debate has focused on programme implementation and cost, with relatively little attention to benefits for social welfare.

Objective

To estimate the effect on US population health outcomes, measured by mortality, of extending private health insurance to the uninsured, and to obtain a rough estimate of the aggregate economic benefits of extending insurance coverage to the uninsured.

Method

We use state-level panel data for all 50 states for the period 1990–2000 to estimate a health insurance augmented, aggregate health production function for the US. An instrumental variables fixed-effects estimator is used to account for confounding variables and reverse causation from health status to insurance coverage. Several observed factors, such as income, education, unemployment, cigarette and alcohol consumption and population demographic characteristics are included to control for potential confounding variables that vary across both states and time.

Results

The results indicate a negative relationship between private insurance and mortality, thus suggesting that extending insurance to the uninsured population would result in an improvement in population health outcomes. The estimate of the marginal effect of insurance coverage indicates that a 10% increase in the population-insured rate of a state reduces mortality by 1.69–1.92%. Using data for the year 2003, we calculate that extending private insurance coverage to the entire uninsured population in the US would save over 75 000 lives annually and may yield annual net benefits to the nation in excess of $US400 billion.

Conclusion

This analysis suggests that extending health insurance coverage through the private market to the 46 million Americans without health insurance may well produce large social economic benefits for the nation as a whole.     

Whence and whither health insurance? A revisionist history

Throughout the postwar era in federal health policy, policymakers have sought to expand both public and private insurance coverage, while wrestling with the cost consequences of the demand generated by the insurance-financing mechanisms thus created. This essay advances the view that the limits to insurance expansion have been reached and that public and private plan sponsors will henceforth continually "thin out" the coverage they offer. In this environment, policymakers seeking to mitigate access concerns may need to consider strategies that promote direct service delivery. This emerging regime, it is argued, will have important implications for the future of innovation in health care.     

Have small-group health insurance purchasing alliances increased coverage?

We use data from 1993 and 1997 employer surveys to assess whether the three largest statewide small-group health insurance purchasing alliances--in California, Connecticut, and Florida--increased coverage in small business. They did not. Specifically, they did not reduce small-group market health insurance premiums, and they did not raise small-business health insurance offer rates. We explore and discuss some reasons why. Alliances do permit employers to offer much greater choice in the number and types of plans; employees are found to take advantage of this wider choice.