The Effect of Health Plan Characteristics on Medicare+Choice Enrollment

Objective. To provide national estimates of the effect of out-of-pocket premiums and benefits on Medicare beneficiaries' choice among managed care health plans.
Data Sources/Study Setting. The data represent the population of all Medicare+Choice (M+C) plans offered to Medicare beneficiaries in the United States in 1999.
Study Design. The dependent variable is the log of the ratio of the market share of the j th health plan to the lowest cost plan in the beneficiary's county of residence. The explanatory variables are measures of premiums and benefits in the j th health plan relative to the premiums and benefits in the lowest cost plan.
Data Collection Methods. The data are from the 1999 Medicare Compare database, and M+C enrollment data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Principal Findings. A $10 increase in an M+C plan's out-of-pocket premium, relative to its competitors, is associated with a decrease of four percentage points in the j th plan's market share (i.e., from 25 to 21 percent), holding the premiums of competing plans constant.
Conclusions. Although our price elasticity estimates are low, the market share losses associated with small changes in a health plan's premium, relative to its competitors, may be sufficient to discipline premiums in a competitive market. Bidding behavior by plans in the Medicare Competitive Pricing Demonstration supports this conclusion.     

Issues regarding health plan payments under Medicare and recommendations for reform.

The failures of the market for current Medicare health plans include poor information and price distortions and can be attributed to government policy. Reforms that could improve its structure are annual open enrollment periods, premium rebates from health management organizations (HMOs) to members, and termination of the federal government's subsidy of Medicare supplementary insurance. However, the price for a basic Medicare benefits package would still be distorted because Medicare bases its contribution on the cost of a comparable package in the fee-for-service (FFS) sector rather than on the cost of the most efficient plan available to beneficiaries in each market area. The present Medicare HMO program almost certainly increases total Medicare costs and actually discourages HMO growth by shielding beneficiaries from the true price difference between basic benefits in the HMO and FFS sectors. Lacking payment reforms, the Medicare HMO program should be terminated.     

Payment policy and competition in the Medicare+Choice program

Over the last 2 years, Medicare+Choice (M+C) plans raised premiums and reduced benefits to an unprecedented degree, arguing that these were unavoidable consequences of inadequate payments. We investigate plan premium and benefit decisions, taking advantage of a natural experiment to separate the influences of payment rates, the intensity of interplan competition, and the underlying cost of providing coverage. We find that the effects of competition are comparable in importance to the effects of payment rates, confirming empirically that it is possible for the Medicare Program to improve benefits without increasing spending or shifting additional costs to beneficiaries.     

Having it all: national benefit equity and local payment parity in Medicare

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has identified two important problems with the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program: nationwide geographic inequity in government-financed benefits, and unequal government payments for M+C plans versus fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare in the same market area. MedPAC concludes that both problems cannot be solved simultaneously. We argue that both problems could be solved if Congress discontinued its policy of underwriting the cost of FFS Medicare. Instead, Congress should define a national entitlement benefit package and have all health plans submit bids on the package in each market area. The government's premium contribution should be equal to the lowest bid submitted by a qualified health plan in each market area. The contribution could be adjusted for health risk, the special obligations of FFS Medicare, and welfare enhancements associated with FFS Medicare that are valued by both beneficiaries and taxpayers but unrelated to beneficiaries' health status.     

Premium rebates and the quiet consensus on market reform for Medicare

Premium rebates allow beneficiaries who choose more efficient Medicare options to receive cash rebates, rather than extra benefits. That simple idea has been controversial. Without fanfare, however, premium rebates have become a key area of agreement in the debate on Medicare reform. Moreover, in legislation in late 2000, it became official policy: Medicare+Choice (M+C) plans will be allowed to offer rebates beginning in 2003. This article explores the economic rationale for premium rebates, provides a historical perspective on the rebate debate, discusses some of the implementation issues that need to be addressed before 2003, and reviews the implications of premium rebates for current legislative proposals for Medicare reform.     

Will Choice‐Based Reform Work for Medicare? Evidence from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

OBJECTIVE:. To examine the effect of premiums and benefits on the health plan choices of older enrollees who choose Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) health plans as their primary payer. DATA SOURCES: Administrative enrollment data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and plan premiums and benefits data taken from the Checkbook Guide to health plans. STUDY DESIGN: We estimate individual plan choice models where the choice of health plan is a function of out-of-pocket premium, actuarial value, plan attributes, and individual characteristics. Plan attributes include plan structure (fee-for-service/preferred provider organization, point-of-service, or health maintenance organization), drug benefit structure, and whether or not the plan covers other types of spending such as dental services and diabetic supplies. The models are estimated by conditional logit. Our study focuses on three populations that currently choose FEHBP as their primary health care coverage and are similar to the Medicare population: current employees and retirees who are approaching the age of Medicare eligibility (ages 60-64) and current federal employees age 65+. Current employees age 65+ are eligible for Medicare, but their FEHBP plan is their primary payer. Retirees and employees 60-64 are not yet eligible for Medicare but are similar in many respects to recently age-eligible Medicare beneficiaries. We also estimate our model for current employees age 55 and younger as a comparison group. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: We select a random sample of retirees and employees age 60-64, as well as all current employees age 65+, from the OPM administrative database for the calendar year 2001. The plan choices available to each person are determined by the plans participating in their metropolitan statistical area. We match plan premium and attribute information from the Checkbook Guide to each plan in the enrollee's list of choices. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find that current workers 65+, 60-64, and non-Medicare eligible retirees are sensitive to variation in plan premiums. The premium elasticities for these groups are similar in magnitude to those of the age 55 and under employee group. Older workers and retirees not yet eligible for Medicare are willing to pay a substantial amount for plans with open provider networks. The willingness to pay for open networks is significantly greater for these groups than for younger employees. Willingness to pay for open network plans varies significantly by income, but varies little by age within group. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding that older workers and non-Medicare eligible retirees are sensitive to plan premiums suggests that choice-based reform of Medicare would lead to cost-conscious choices by Medicare beneficiaries. However, our finding that these groups are willing to pay more for open network plans than younger employees suggest that higher risk individuals may migrate toward higher benefit, higher cost plans. Our findings on the relationship between income and willingness to pay for open network plans suggest that means testing is a viable reform for lowering Medicare program costs.     

Risk selection and benefits in the Medicare+Choice program

We estimate the relation between enhanced benefits offered by the Medicare+Choice (M+C) plan in 1999 and a measure of risk selection based on inpatient encounter data. Higher risks are attracted to plans that offer outpatient drug coverage. The risk score increases by 2.2 percent for drug coverage with an annual limit less than $800 and by 3.6 percent for coverage with a limit more than $800. However, some benefits such as dental coverage were related to favorable risk selection. If M+C plans competed on the basis of benefits and premiums, as they would if they could give untaxed premium rebates, benefits that attract high risks would be underprovided.     

How Successful Is Medicare Advantage?

Context

Medicare Part C, or Medicare Advantage (MA), now almost 30 years old, has generally been viewed as a policy disappointment. Enrollment has vacillated but has never come close to the penetration of managed care plans in the commercial insurance market or in Medicaid, and because of payment policy decisions and selection, the MA program is viewed as having added to cost rather than saving funds for the Medicare program. Recent changes in Medicare policy, including improved risk adjustment, however, may have changed this picture.

Methods

This article summarizes findings from our group''s work evaluating MA''s recent performance and investigating payment options for improving its performance even more. We studied the behavior of both beneficiaries and plans, as well as the effects of Medicare policy.

Findings

Beneficiaries make “mistakes” in their choice of MA plan options that can be explained by behavioral economics. Few beneficiaries make an active choice after they enroll in Medicare. The high prevalence of “zero-premium” plans signals inefficiency in plan design and in the market''s functioning. That is, Medicare premium policies interfere with economically efficient choices. The adverse selection problem, in which healthier, lower-cost beneficiaries tend to join MA, appears much diminished. The available measures, while limited, suggest that, on average, MA plans offer care of equal or higher quality and for less cost than traditional Medicare (TM). In counties, greater MA penetration appears to improve TM''s performance.

Conclusions

Medicare policies regarding lock-in provisions and risk adjustment that were adopted in the mid-2000s have mitigated the adverse selection problem previously plaguing MA. On average, MA plans appear to offer higher value than TM, and positive spillovers from MA into TM imply that reimbursement should not necessarily be neutral. Policy changes in Medicare that reform the way that beneficiaries are charged for MA plan membership are warranted to move more beneficiaries into MA.     

Does managed health care reduce health care disparities between minorities and Whites?

This paper investigates whether managed care ameliorates or aggravates ethnic and racial health care disparities in Medicare. First, we analyze the choice of type of insurance made by Medicare enrollees to see if minorities are more likely to choose the managed care alternative. Second, we study the differential effect of managed care on disparities using several measures of access, use and cost of services. Both analyses are conducted on two independent data sets, the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and the National Health Interview Survey. We conclude that relative to Whites, minorities are at least as well off -- in terms of benefits and costs -- in Medicare managed care as in Medicare traditional indemnity plans.     

Estimation of a hedonic pricing model for Medigap insurance

OBJECTIVE: This paper uses a unique database to examine premiums paid by beneficiaries for Medigap supplemental coverage. Average premiums charged by insurers are reported, as well as premiums by enrollee age and gender, and additional policy characteristics. Marginal prices for Medigap benefits are estimated using hedonic price regressions. In addition, the paper considers how additional policy characteristics and geographic differences in the use and cost of medical care affect premiums. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: A comprehensive database on premiums paid by beneficiaries for newly issued Medigap policies in the year 2000 along with state-level characteristics. STUDY DESIGN: Hedonic pricing equations are used to estimate implicit prices for Medigap benefits. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services contracted for the creation of a detailed database on Medigap premiums. Data were collected in three stages. First, letters were sent directly to insurers requesting premium data. Second, letters were directly to state insurance commissioner's offices requesting premium data. Last, each state insurance commissioner's office was visited to collect missing data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: With the exceptions of the part B deductible and drug benefit, Medigap supplemental insurance is priced consistent with the actuarial value of benefits offered under the standardized plans. Premiums vary substantially based on rating method, whether the policy is guaranteed issue, Medigap Select, or explicitly for smokers. Premiums increase with enrollee age, but do not vary between men and women. The relationship between premiums and enrollee age varies across rating methods. Attained-age policies show the strongest relationship between age and premiums, while community-rated premiums, by definition, do not vary with age. Medigap supplemental insurance premiums are higher in states with poorer health, greater utilization, and greater managed care penetration. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high cost, Medigap plans are generally priced in accordance with the actuarial value of benefits. The primary exception is the drug benefit, which appears to be subject to substantial adverse selection. Benefits such as the part B deductible and at-home recovery benefit offer little value to consumers. Several states require insurers to community rate premiums. Such regulation has important implications for premiums, and research needs to consider the impact of such regulation on the Medigap market.     

Is premium support the right medicine for Medicare?

This paper assesses the desirability of transforming Medicare into a premium-support system. I focus on three areas crucial to the future of Medicare: cost savings, beneficiary choice, and the stability of traditional Medicare. Based on my analysis of the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare plan, I find substantial problems with adopting premium support for Medicare. In particular, projections of premium-support savings are based on questionable assumptions that the slowdown in health spending during 1993-1997 can be sustained and extrapolated to future Medicare performance. Consequently, premium support may inadvertently destabilize public Medicare and erode beneficiary choice without achieving substantial savings.     

Complex Medicare advantage choices may overwhelm seniors--especially those with impaired decision making

The proliferation of Medicare Advantage plans has given Medicare enrollees more choices, but these could be overwhelming for some, especially for those with impaired decision-making capabilities. We analyzed national survey data and linked Medicare enrollment data for the period 2004-07 to examine the effects on enrollment of expanded choices and benefits in the Medicare Advantage program. The availability of more plan options was associated with increased enrollment in Medicare Advantage when elderly Medicare beneficiaries chose from a limited number of plans-for example, fewer than fifteen plans. Enrollment was unchanged or decreased in Medicare Advantage when beneficiaries chose from larger numbers of plans-for example, fifteen to thirty, or more than thirty. Elderly adults with low cognitive function were less responsive to the generosity of available benefits than those with high cognitive function when choosing between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. Simplifying choices in Medicare Advantage could improve beneficiaries' enrollment decisions, strengthen value-based competition among plans, and extend the benefits of choice to seniors with impaired cognition. It could also lower their out-of-pocket costs.     

An economic history of Medicare part C

Context: Twenty‐five years ago, private insurance plans were introduced into the Medicare program with the stated dual aims of (1) giving beneficiaries a choice of health insurance plans beyond the fee‐for‐service Medicare program and (2) transferring to the Medicare program the efficiencies and cost savings achieved by managed care in the private sector. Methods: In this article we review the economic history of Medicare Part C, known today as Medicare Advantage, focusing on the impact of major changes in the program's structure and of plan payment methods on trends in the availability of private plans, plan enrollment, and Medicare spending. Additionally, we compare the experience of Medicare Advantage and of employer‐sponsored health insurance with managed care over the same time period. Findings: Beneficiaries’ access to private plans has been inconsistent over the program's history, with higher plan payments resulting in greater choice and enrollment and vice versa. But Medicare Advantage generally has cost more than the traditional Medicare program, an overpayment that has increased in recent years. Conclusions: Major changes in Medicare Advantage's payment rules are needed in order to simultaneously encourage the participation of private plans, the provision of high‐quality care, and to save Medicare money.     

The effect of premiums on the decision to participate in health insurance and other fringe benefits offered by the employer: evidence from a real-world experiment

In this paper, we investigate the effect of the out-of-pocket premium on the decision to enroll in employer health insurance and other benefits plans including dental insurance, vision care, long-term care insurance, and wellness benefits. Previous estimates of the effects of premium on takeup of health insurance could be biased toward zero due to a correlation between premium and unobservable demand or plan quality. We solve this problem using data representing hypothetical choices by employees under three different price regimes, providing price variation uncorrelated with either individual-specific or plan-specific unobservables. We find that workers are insensitive to price in health insurance takeup. Workers show much greater price sensitivity to decisions about dental insurance, vision plans, long-term care insurance, and wellness benefits. We conclude that premium subsidies are unlikely to have a substantial impact on increasing insurance rates of workers already offered employer insurance.     

Access to cancer drugs in Medicare Part D: formulary placement and beneficiary cost sharing in 2006

The Medicare Part D benefit expands the universe of cancer drugs and biologics that Medicare may cover. Individual Part D plans have discretion to determine their formularies and cost sharing for drugs within federal guidelines. This paper analyzes differences in coverage and cost sharing for cancer drugs among these plans. We find that many cancer drugs, including brand-name products, are covered by almost all plans, although prior authorization might limit access to some. In addition, many plans charge a relatively low copayment for most cancer drugs. These findings suggest that Part D could greatly expand beneficiaries' access to cancer treatments.