Switching health insurers: the role of price,quality and consumer information search

We examine the impact of price, service quality and information search on people’s propensity to switch health insurers in the competitive Dutch health insurance market. Using panel data from annual household surveys and data on health insurers’ premiums and quality ratings over the period 2006–2012, we estimate a random effects logit model of people’s switching decisions. We find that switching propensities depend on health plan price and quality, and on people’s age, health, education and having supplementary or group insurance. Young people (18–35 years) are more sensitive to price, whereas older people are more sensitive to quality. Searching for health plan information has a much stronger impact on peoples’ sensitivity to price than to service quality. In addition, searching for health plan information has a stronger impact on the switching propensity of higher than lower educated people, suggesting that higher educated people make better use of available health plan information. Finally, having supplementary insurance significantly reduces older people’s switching propensity.     

Managed competition in the Netherlands: Do insurers have incentives to steer on quality?

In health care systems based on managed competition, insurers are expected to negotiate with providers about price, quantity, and quality of care. The Dutch experience shows that this expectation may be justified with regard to price and quantity, but for quality the results are less conclusive. To examine the incentives insurers face for enhancing quality of care, we conducted in-depth interviews with CEOs and organised separate focus groups with purchasers and marketers of five Dutch health insurers. Jointly these insurers account for more than 90 percent of the market. We distinguished three categories of both positive and negative incentives to steer on quality: social, competitive and financial incentives. The overall picture emerging is that insurers are caught in a struggle between positive and negative incentives, with CEOs being more positive about the incentives to steer on quality than purchasers and marketers. At present, the social mission perceived by insurers seems to be their most important driver to invest in quality enhancement. However, whether or not the role of the social mission is sustainable in a competitive market remains unclear. Improving publicly available information on quality therefore seems to be crucially important for reinforcing the positive as well as counteracting the negative incentives insurers face with respect to enhancing quality of care.     

Elasticities of market shares and social health insurance choice in Germany: a dynamic panel data approach

In 1996, free choice of health insurers was introduced to the German social health insurance system. One objective was to increase efficiency through competition. A crucial precondition for effective competition among health insurers is that consumers search for lower-priced health insurers. We test this hypothesis by estimating the price elasticities of insurers' market shares. We use unique panel data and specify a dynamic panel model to explain changes in market shares. Estimation results suggest that short-run price elasticities are smaller than previously found by other studies. In the long-run, however, estimation results suggest substantial price effects.     

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.     

Can premium differentiation counteract adverse selection in the Dutch supplementary health insurance? A simulation study

Most health insurers in the Netherlands apply community-rating and open enrolment for supplementary health insurance, although it is offered at a free market. Theoretically, this should result in adverse selection. There are four indications that adverse selection indeed has started to occur on the Dutch supplementary insurance market. The goal of this paper is to analyze whether premium differentiation would be able to counteract adverse selection. We do this by simulating the uptake and premium development of supplementary insurance over 25 years using data on healthcare expenses and background characteristics from 110,261 insured. For the simulation of adverse selection, it is assumed that only insured for whom supplementary insurance is expected not to be beneficial will consider opting out of the insurance. Therefore, we calculate for each insured the financial profitability (by making assumptions about the consumer’s expected claims and the premium set by the insurer), the individual’s risk attitude and the probability to opt out or opt in. The simulation results show that adverse selection might result in a substantial decline in insurance uptake. Additionally, the simulations show that if insurers were to differentiate their premium to 28 age and gender groups, adverse selection could be modestly counteracted. Finally, this paper shows that if insurers would apply highly refined risk-rating, adverse selection for this type of supplementary insurance could be counteracted completely.     

What drives insurer participation and premiums in the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace?

We investigate determinants of market entry and premiums within the context of the Affordable Care Act’s Marketplaces for individual insurance. Using Bresnahan and Reiss (1991) as the conceptual framework, we study how competition and firm heterogeneity relate to premiums in 36 states using Federally Facilitated or Supported Marketplaces in 2016. Our primary data source is the Qualified Health Plan Landscape File, augmented with market characteristics from the American Community Survey and Area Health Resource File as well as insurer-level information from federal Medical Loss Ratio annual reports. We first estimate a model of insurer entry and then investigate the relationship between a market’s predicted number of entrants and insurer-level premiums. Our entry model results suggest that competition is increasing with the number of insurers, most notably as the market size increases from 3 to 4 entrants. Results from the premium regression suggest that each additional entrant is associated with approximately 4% lower premiums, controlling for other factors. An alternative explanation for the relationship between entrants and premiums is that more efficient insurers (who can price lower) are the ones that enter markets with many entrants, and this is reflected in lower premiums. An exploratory analysis of insurers’ non-claims costs (a proxy for insurer efficiency) reveals that average costs among entrants are rising slightly with the number of insurers in the market. This pattern does not support the hypothesis that premiums decrease with more entrants because those entrants are more efficient, suggesting instead that the results are being driven mostly by price competition.     

Preferences and choices for care and health insurance

Legislation that came into effect in 2006 has dramatically altered the health insurance system in the Netherlands, placing greater emphasis on consumer choice and competition among insurers. The potential for such competition depends largely on consumer preferences for price and quality of service by insurers and quality of affiliated providers. This study provides initial evidence on the preferences of Dutch consumers and how they view trade-offs between various aspects of health insurance product design. A key feature of the analysis is that we compare the responses of high and low risk individuals, where risk is defined by the presence of a costly chronic condition. This contrast is critically important for understanding incentives facing insurers and for identifying potential unanticipated consequences of market competition. The results from our conjoint analysis suggest that not only high risk but also low risk individuals are willing to pay substantially more for insurance products that can be shown to provide better health outcomes. This suggests that insurance products that are more expensive and provide better quality of care may also attract low risk individuals. Therefore, development and dissemination of good, reliable and understandable health plan performance indicators may effectively reduce the problem of adverse selection.     

Is there evidence that recent consolidation in the health insurance industry has adversely affected premiums?

James Robinson suggests that recent consolidation in the insurance market has been a cause of higher health insurance prices (premiums). Although the recent consolidation among health insurers and rising premiums are indisputable, it is unlikely that consolidation has had any adverse effect on premiums nationwide, and Robinson provides no data that suggest otherwise. Specifically, he does not present data showing an increase in concentration in any relevant market during the past few years, let alone any resulting increase in premiums. Health insurance consolidation in certain local markets could adversely affect premiums, but it seems clear that it is not a major national antitrust issue.     

Is there a business case for quality in The Netherlands? A critical analysis of the recent reforms of the health care system

Major reforms of the health insurance system and reimbursement systems for care providers are currently taking place in The Netherlands. These market-oriented health care reforms will transform the current central supply-driven system to a system of managed competition both among health care insurers and care providers. The reforms are not systematically linked to the discussions about quality of care and together with consumers who might be more interested in lower premiums; they offer almost no incentive for health care insurers and providers to steer on quality. Dutch policy makers should, therefore, be more explicit whether competition should take place on quality or price, and if the former is the case, additional incentives as part of the system reforms, are needed to create a business case for quality.     

Consumer information surplus and adverse selection in competitive health insurance markets: an empirical study

If premiums for health insurance are not risk related, there exists a consumer information surplus that may result in adverse selection. Our results indicate that insurers can greatly reduce this surplus by risk-adjusting the premium. We conclude that there need not be any substantial unavoidable consumer information surplus if consumers can choose whether to take a deductible for a one- or two-year health insurance contract with otherwise identical benefits. Therefore, adverse selection need not be a problem in a competitive insurance market with risk-adjusted premiums or vouchers and with such a consumer choice of health plan.     

IS THE MEDICAL LOSS RATIO A GOOD TARGET MEASURE FOR REGULATION IN THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET FOR HEALTH INSURANCE?

Effective January 1, 2011, individual market health insurers must meet a minimum medical loss ratio (MLR) of 80%. This law aims to encourage ‘productive’ forms of competition by increasing the proportion of premium dollars spent on clinical benefits. To date, very little is known about the performance of firms in the individual health insurance market, including how MLRs are related to insurer and market characteristics. The MLR comprises one component of the price–cost margin, a traditional gauge of market power; the other component is percent of premiums spent on administrative expenses. We use data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (2001–2009) to evaluate whether the MLR is a good target measure for regulation by comparing the two components of the price–cost margin between markets that are more competitive versus those that are not, accounting for firm and market characteristics. We find that insurers with monopoly power have lower MLRs. Moreover, we find no evidence suggesting that insurers' administrative expenses are lower in more concentrated insurance markets. Thus, our results are largely consistent with the interpretation that the MLR could serve as a target measure of market power in regulating the individual market for health insurance but with notable limited ability to capture product and firm heterogeneity. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Genetic screening,health care and the insurance industry

The potential use of genetic tests in insurance has raised concerns about discrimination and individuals losing access to health care either because of refusals to test for treatable diseases, or because test-positives cannot afford premiums. Governments have so far largely sought to restrict the use of genetic information by insurance companies. To date the number of tests available with significant actuarial value is limited. However, this is likely to change, raising more clearly the question as to whether the social costs of adverse selection outweigh the social costs of individuals not accessing health care for fear of the consequences of test information being used in insurance markets. In this contribution we set out the policy context and model the potential trade-offs between the losses faced by insurers from adverse selection by insurees (which will increase premiums reducing consumer welfare) and the detrimental health effects that may result from persons refusing to undergo tests that could identify treatable health conditions. It argues that the optimal public policy on genetic testing should reflect overall societal benefit, taking account of these trade-offs. Based on our model, the factors that influence the outcome include: the size of and value attached to the health gains from treatment; deterrent effects of a disclosure requirement on testing for health reasons; incidence of the disease; propensity of test-positives to adverse select; policy value adverse selectors buy in a non-disclosure environment; and price elasticity of demand for insurance. Our illustrative model can be used as a benchmark for developing other scenarios or incorporating real data in order to address the impact of different policies on disclosure and requirement to test.     

How do health insurer market concentration and bargaining power with hospitals affect health insurance premiums?

The US health insurance industry is highly concentrated, and health insurance premiums are high and rising rapidly. Policymakers have focused on the possible link between the two, leading to ACA provisions to increase insurer competition. However, while market power may enable insurers to include higher profit margins in their premiums, it may also result in stronger bargaining leverage with hospitals to negotiate lower payment rates to partially offset these higher premiums. We empirically examine the relationship between employer-sponsored fully-insured health insurance premiums and the level of concentration in local insurer and hospital markets using the nationally-representative 2006–2011 KFF/HRET Employer Health Benefits Survey. We exploit a unique feature of employer-sponsored insurance, in which self-insured employers purchase only administrative services from managed care organizations, to disentangle these different effects on insurer concentration by constructing one concentration measure representing fully-insured plans’ transactions with employers and the other concentration measure representing insurers’ bargaining with hospitals. As expected, we find that premiums are indeed higher for plans sold in markets with higher levels of concentration relevant to insurer transactions with employers, lower for plans in markets with higher levels of insurer concentration relevant to insurer bargaining with hospitals, and higher for plans in markets with higher levels of hospital market concentration.     

Switching gains and health plan price elasticities: 20 years of managed competition reforms in The Netherlands

In this paper we estimate health plan price elasticities and financial switching gains for consumers over a 20-year period in which managed competition was introduced in the Dutch health insurance market. The period is characterized by a major health insurance reform in 2006 to provide health insurers with more incentives and tools to compete, and to provide consumers with a more differentiated choice of products. Prior to the reform, in the period 1995–2005, we find a low number of switchers, between 2 and 4% a year, modest average total switching gains of 2 million euros per year and short-term health plan price elasticities ranging from ?0.1 to ?0.4. The major reform in 2006 resulted in an all-time high switching rate of 18%, total switching gains of 130 million euros, and a high short-term price elasticity of ?5.7. During 2007–2015 switching rates returned to lower levels, between 4 and 8% per year, with total switching gains in the order of 40 million euros per year on average. Total switching gains could have been 10 times higher if all consumers had switched to one of the cheapest plans. We find short-term price elasticities ranging between ?0.9 and ?2.2. Our estimations suggest substantial consumer inertia throughout the entire period, as we find degrees of choice persistence ranging from about 0.8 to 0.9.     

Trust in times of health reform

Trust is seen as an important condition for the smooth functioning of institutions, such as the health care system. In this article we describe the trust relationships between the three main actors in the Dutch health care system: patients/insured, healthcare providers and insurers. We used data from different surveys between 2006 and 2016. 2006 was the year of the introduction of an insurance reform in the Netherlands towards regulated competition.In the triangle of trust relationships between the three actors we found strong and mutual trust relationships between patients and healthcare providers and weak trust relationships between healthcare providers and insurers as well as between insured and insurance organisations. This hampers the intended role of insurers as selective purchasers of health care on the basis of quality and price.     

Health insurance,cost expectations,and adverse job turnover

Because less healthy employees value health insurance more than the healthy ones, when health insurance is newly offered job turnover rates for healthier employees decline less than turnover rates for the less healthy. We call this adverse job turnover, and it implies that a firm's expected health costs will increase when health insurance is first offered. Health insurance premiums may fail to adjust sufficiently fast because state regulations restrict annual premium changes, or insurers are reluctant to change premiums rapidly. Even with premiums set at the long run expected costs, some firms may be charged premiums higher than their current expected costs and choose not to offer insurance. High administrative costs at small firms exacerbate this dynamic selection problem. Using 1998–1999 MEDSTAT MarketScan and 1997 Employer Health Insurance Survey data, we find that expected employee health expenditures at firms that offer insurance have lower within‐firm and higher between‐firm variance than at firms that do not. Turnover rates are systematically higher in industries in which firms are less likely to offer insurance. Simulations of the offer decision capturing between‐firm health‐cost heterogeneity and expected turnover rates match the observed pattern across firm sizes well. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Trends in the golden state: small-group premiums rise sharply while actuarial values for individual coverage plummet

Using multiple databases, this paper examines recent trends in the affordability and comprehensiveness of small-group and individual health insurance markets in California. Both became less affordable over the study period. In 2006, a single person age 32-52 earning the median income who purchased individual insurance spent on average 16 percent of income on premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses. For individual insurance, the share of medical expenses paid by insurance as opposed to patients declined from 2002 to 2006. In the small-group market, premiums rose more than 50 percent from 2003 to 2006, but the proportion of claims paid by insurers for a standardized population remained constant.     

Profit-seeking, corporate control, and the trustworthiness of health care organizations: assessments of health plan performance by their affiliated physicians

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative trustworthiness of nonprofit and for-profit health plans, using physician assessments to measure dimensions of plan performance that are difficult for consumers to evaluate. DATA SOURCE: A nationally representative sample of 1,621 physicians who responded to a special topics module of the 1998 Socioeconomic Monitoring System Survey (SMS), fielded by the American Medical Association. Physicians assessed various aspects of their primary managed care plan, defined as the plan in which they had the largest number of patients. STUDY DESIGN: Plan ownership was measured as the interaction of tax-exempt status (nonprofit versus for-profit) and corporate control (single state versus multistate health plans). Two sets of regression models are estimated. The dependent variables in the regressions are five measures of performance related to plan trustworthiness: two related to deceptive practices and three to dimensions of quality that are largely hidden from enrollees. The first set (baseline) models relate plan ownership to trustworthy practices, controlling for other characteristics of the plan, the marketplace for health insurance, and the physician respondents. The second (interactive) set of models examines how the magnitude of ownership-related differences in trustworthiness varies with the market share of nonprofit plans in each community. DATA COLLECTION: The 1998 SMS was fielded between April and September of 1998 by Westat Inc. The average time required for a completed interview was approximately 30 minutes. The overall response rate was 52.2 percent. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared with more local nonprofit plans, for-profit plans affiliated with multistate corporations are consistently reported by their affiliated physicians to engage in practices associated with reduced trustworthiness. Nonprofit plans affiliated with multistate corporations have more physician-reported practices associated with trustworthiness than do for-profit corporate plans on four of five outcomes, but appear less trustworthy than locally controlled nonprofits on two of the five measures. The magnitude of these ownership-related differences declines as the market share of nonprofit plans rises: for two of the five measures, ownership-related differences in practices related to trustworthiness are entirely eliminated when the nonprofits enroll more than 30 percent of the local market. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of for-profit ownership and multistate corporate control appears to consistently and substantially reduce physician-reported measures related to the trustworthiness of health plans. Because this is the fastest growing form of managed care, these results raise concerns about further erosion of trust in American health care. Preserving a substantial market niche for nonprofit plans appears to reduce this erosion and should be considered by policymakers as a strategy for restoring trust in the health care system.     

Capital finance and ownership conversions in health care

This paper analyzes the for-profit transformation of health care, with emphasis on Internet start-ups, physician practice management firms, insurance plans, and hospitals at various stages in the industry life cycle. Venture capital, conglomerate diversification, publicly traded equity, convertible bonds, retained earnings, and taxable corporate debt come with forms of financial accountability that are distinct from those inherent in the capital sources available to nonprofit organizations. The pattern of for-profit conversions varies across health sectors, parallel with the relative advantages and disadvantages of for-profit and nonprofit capital sources in those sectors.     

Switching benefits and costs in competitive health insurance markets: A conceptual framework and empirical evidence from the Netherlands

Competitive health insurance markets will only enhance cost-containment, efficiency, quality, and consumer responsiveness if all consumers feel free to easily switch insurer. Consumers will switch insurer if their perceived switching benefits outweigh their perceived switching costs. We developed a conceptual framework with potential switching benefits and costs in competitive health insurance markets. Moreover, we used a questionnaire among Dutch consumers (1091 respondents) to empirically examine the relevance of the different switching benefits and costs in consumers’ decision to (not) switch insurer. Price, insurers’ service quality, insurers’ contracted provider network, the benefits of supplementary insurance, and welcome gifts are potential switching benefits. Transaction costs, learning costs, ‘benefit loss’ costs, uncertainty costs, the costs of (not) switching provider, and sunk costs are potential switching costs. In 2013 most Dutch consumers switched insurer because of (1) price and (2) benefits of supplementary insurance. Nearly half of the non-switchers – and particularly unhealthy consumers – mentioned one of the switching costs as their main reason for not switching. Because unhealthy consumers feel not free to easily switch insurer, insurers have reduced incentives to invest in high-quality care for them. Therefore, policymakers should develop strategies to increase consumer choice.