Effects of state reinsurance programs on health insurance exchange premiums and insurer participation

Objective

The aim of the study was to estimate the effect of the state-based reinsurance programs through the section 1332 State Innovation Waivers on health insurance marketplace premiums and insurer participation.

Data Source

2015 to 2022 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Insurance Exchange Compare Datasets.

Study Design

An event study difference-in-differences (DD) model separately for each year of implementation and a synthetic control method (SCM) are used to estimate year-by-year effects following program implementation.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

Not applicable.

Principal Findings

Reinsurance programs were associated with a decline in premiums in the first year of implementation by 10%–13%, 5%–19%, and 11%–17% for bronze, silver, and gold plans (p < 0.05). There is a trend of sustained declines especially for states that implemented their programs in 2019 and 2020. The SCM analyses suggest some effect heterogeneity across states but also premium declines across most states. There is no evidence that reinsurance programs affected insurer participation.

Conclusion

State-based reinsurance programs have the potential to improve the affordability of health insurance coverage. However, reinsurance programs do not appear to have had an effect on insurer participation, highlighting the need for policy makers to consider complementary strategies to encourage insurer participation.     

Intermediate-term outcomes of combined phacoemulsification and Aurolab aqueous drainage implant in eyes with refractory glaucoma and coexistent cataract

International Ophthalmology - To investigate the efficacy and safety of non-valved Aurolab aqueous drainage implant (AADI) surgery combined with phacoemulsification in eyes with refractory glaucoma...     

The case for allele‐specific recognition by the TCR

There is a sharp difference in how one views TCR structure–function–behaviour dependent on whether its recognition of major histocompatibility complex‐encoded restriction elements (R) is germline selected or somatically generated. The generally accepted or Standard model is built on the assumption that recognition of R is by the V regions of the αβ TCR, which is not driven by allele specificity, whereas the competing model posits that recognition of R is allele‐specific. The establishing of allele‐specific recognition of R by the TCR would rule out the Standard model and clear the road to a consideration of a competing construct, the Tritope model. Here, the case for allele‐specific recognition (germline selected) is detailed making it obvious that the Standard model is untenable.