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.     

Standardisierte Kontrastmittelsonographie (CEUS) in der klinischen Akut- und Notfallmedizin sowie Intensivmedizin (CEUS-Akut)

Die Anaesthesiologie -     

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...     

Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.     

Differentiating poor validity from probable impairment on the medical symptom validity test: a cross-validation study

Aims: In neuropsychological evaluations, it is often difficult to ascertain whether poor performance on measures of validity is due to poor effort or malingering, or whether there is genuine cognitive impairment. Dunham and Denney created an algorithm to assess this question using the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT). We assessed the ability of their algorithm to detect poor validity versus probable impairment, and concordance of failure on the MSVT with other freestanding tests of performance validity.

Methods: Two previously published datasets (n?=?153 and n?=?641, respectively) from outpatient neuropsychological evaluations were used to test Dunham and Denney’s algorithm, and to assess concordance of failure rates with the Test of Memory Malingering and the forced choice measure of the California Verbal Learning Test, two commonly used performance validity tests.

Results: In both datasets, none of the four cutoff scores for failure on the MSVT (70%, 75%, 80%, or 85%) identified a poor validity group with proportionally aligned failure rates on other freestanding measures of performance validity. Additionally, the protocols with probable impairment did not differ from those with poor validity on cognitive measures.

Conclusions: Despite what appeared to be a promising approach to evaluating failure on the easy MSVT subtests when clinical data are unavailable (as recommended in the advanced interpretation program, or advanced interpretation [AI], of the MSVT), the current findings indicate the AI remains the gold standard for doing so. Future research should build on this effort to address shortcomings in measures of effort in neuropsychological evaluations.