Project description:ObjectiveTo examine trends in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage rates and its associated components between 2000 and 2008, to provide a baseline for later evaluations of the Affordable Care Act, and to provide information to policy makers as they design the implementation details of the law.Data sourcesPrivate sector employer data from the 2000, 2001, and 2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey-Insurance Component (MEPS-IC).Study designWe examine time trends in employer offer, eligibility, and take-up rates. We add a new dimension to the literature by examining dependent coverage and decomposing its trends. We investigate heterogeneity in trends by firm size.Data collectionThe MEPS-IC is an annual survey, sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The MEPS-IC obtains information on establishment characteristics, whether an establishment offers health insurance, and details on up to four plans.Principal findingsWe find that coverage rates for workers declined in both small and large firms. In small firms, coverage declined due to a drop in both offer and take-up rates. In the largest firms, offer rates were stable and the decline was due to falling take-up rates. In addition, enrollment shifted toward single coverage and away from dependent coverage in both small and large firms. For small firms, this shift was due to declining offer and take-up rates for dependent coverage. In large firms, offers of dependent coverage were stable but take-up rates dropped. Within the category of dependent coverage, the availability of employee-plus-one plans increased in all firm size categories, but take-up rates for these plans declined in small firms.
Project description:ObjectiveTort reform may affect health insurance premiums both by reducing medical malpractice premiums and by reducing the extent of defensive medicine. The objective of this study is to estimate the effects of noneconomic damage caps on the premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance.Data sources/study settingEmployer premium data and plan/establishment characteristics were obtained from the 1999 through 2004 Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Insurance Surveys. Damage caps were obtained and dated based on state annotated codes, statutes, and judicial decisions.Study designFixed effects regression models were run to estimate the effects of the size of inflation-adjusted damage caps on the weighted average single premiums.Data collection/extraction methodsState tort reform laws were identified using Westlaw, LEXIS, and statutory compilations. Legislative repeal and amendment of statutes and court decisions resulting in the overturning or repealing state statutes were also identified using LEXIS.Principal findingsUsing a variety of empirical specifications, there was no statistically significant evidence that noneconomic damage caps exerted any meaningful influence on the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that tort reforms have not translated into insurance savings.
Project description:ObjectiveWe investigate the factors driving the downward trend in employer sponsored health insurance (ESI) coverage between 1999 and 2002 for low- and middle-income workers, and assess their insurance options in the absence of ESI coverage.DataWe use the 1999 and 2002 rounds of the National Survey of America's Families (NSAF), supplemented with ESI premiums from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, as well as other state- and county-level data from a variety of sources. The sample includes workers between the ages of 19 and 64.Study designWe first estimate linear probability models of the probability of having an ESI offer and, for those with an offer, the probability of taking up ESI coverage, using two-stage least square regression on the 2002 worker sample. We then use Oaxaca-Blinder regression-based decomposition methods to identify the factors that explain the changes in ESI offer and take-up between 1999 and 2002.Principal findingsWe find that while low-income workers are more likely to be uninsured and are most vulnerable to the loss of ESI coverage, many middle-income workers are also in a precarious position when faced with the loss of ESI coverage. Many low- and middle-income workers have few coverage options in the absence of ESI. This is particularly problematic for low-income workers: only 13 percent have a spouse with an ESI offer and the nongroup premium they face increased at a much higher rate than for middle-income workers. Finally, we find that the drop in ESI offers between 1999 and 2002 was driven largely by changes in nature of the workers' jobs, while the drop in ESI take-up was driven largely by rising ESI premiums.ConclusionsPolicies that shore up the ESI system are important for both low- and middle-income workers, as both are vulnerable to a loss of insurance coverage in the absence of ESI. Over time, the potential coverage options available to low- and middle-income workers in the absence of ESI have narrowed as nongroup premiums have increased. While public coverage has provided some protection from that increase for low-income workers, middle-income workers are much less likely to have access to public protection.
Project description:We use health care claims data from the Health Care Cost Institute to estimate the share of geographic variation in health care spending attributable to person-specific (demand) and place-specific (supply) factors. We exploit patient migration across 112 metropolitan areas between 2012 and 2016. Using an event study approach, we find that moving to an area with 10% higher (lower) spending leads to a 4.2% increase (decrease) in individual medical spending. Our estimate implies that 42% of variation in health care spending among the commercially insured is attributable to place-specific factors. We show that variation in both price and utilization jointly determine the place-specific impact on individual spending. All else equal, we find that moving to an area with 10% higher (lower) prices, on average leads to a 5% increase (decrease) in spending, while moving to an area with 10% higher (lower) utilization leads to a 3.6% increase (decrease).
Project description:ObjectiveThe study estimated balance billing for out-of-network behavioral health claims and described subscriber characteristics associated with higher billing.MethodsClaims data (2011-2014) from a national managed behavioral health organization's employer-sponsored insurance (N=196,034 family-years with out-of-network behavioral health claims) were used to calculate inflation-adjusted annual balance billing-the submitted amount (charged by provider) minus the allowed amount (insurer agreed to pay plus patient cost-sharing) and any discounts offered by the provider. Among family-years with complete sociodemographic data (N=68,659), regressions modeled balance billing as a function of plan and provider supply, subscriber and family-year, and employer characteristics. A two-part model accounted for family-years without balance billing.ResultsAmong the 50% of family-years with balance billing, mean±SD balance billing was $861±$3,500 (median, $175; 90th percentile, $1,684). Adjusted analysis found balance billing was higher ($523 higher, 95% confidence interval [CI]=$340, $705) for carve-out versus carve-in plans and for health maintenance organization (HMO) enrollees versus non-HMO enrollees ($156, 95% CI=$75, $237); for subscribers with a bachelor's degree, compared with an associate's degree or with a high school diploma or lower (between $172 [95% CI=$228, $116] and $224 [95% CI=$284, $163] higher, respectively); and for subscribers ages 45-54, compared with those ages 35-44 and 18-24 (between $57 [95% CI=$103, $10] and $290 [95% CI=$398, $183] higher, respectively). Balance billing was lower in states with more in-network providers per capita (-$8, 95% CI=-$10, -$5).ConclusionsBalance billing for out-of-network behavioral health claims may be burdensome. Expanded behavioral health networks may improve access.
Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the effect of growth in health care costs that outpaces gross domestic product (GDP) growth ("excess" growth in health care costs) on employment, gross output, and value added to GDP of U.S. industries.Study settingWe analyzed data from 38 U.S. industries for the period 1987-2005. All data are publicly available from various government agencies.Study designWe estimated bivariate and multivariate regressions. To develop the regression models, we assumed that rapid growth in health care costs has a larger effect on economic performance for industries where large percentages of workers receive employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI). We used the estimated regression coefficients to simulate economic outcomes under alternative scenarios of health care cost inflation.ResultsFaster growth in health care costs had greater adverse effects on economic outcomes for industries with larger percentages of workers who had ESI. We found that a 10 percent increase in excess growth in health care costs would have resulted in 120,803 fewer jobs, US$28,022 million in lost gross output, and US$14,082 million in lost value added in 2005. These declines represent 0.17 to 0.18 percent of employment, gross output, and value added in 2005.ConclusionExcess growth in health care costs is adversely affecting the economic performance of U.S. industries.
Project description:BackgroundEmployer-sponsored health insurance, particularly for retirees with limited incomes, plays a major funding role in Canadian health care, including prescription drugs and dental services. We aimed to investigate the changes in retiree health insurance availability over time.MethodsWe performed a secondary analysis of data from the 2005 and 2013-2014 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey using multivariate logistic regression to study changes in retiree coverage availability over time in Ontario. We estimated the adjusted odds ratios of having employer coverage for likely retirees (people over age 65 yr who reported not working and those over age 75 yr), adjusting for a number of potential confounders. Sensitivity analysis was also performed for coverage of different treatments separately.ResultsThe response rate was 76% for the 2005 cycle and 66% for 2013-2014 for the entire survey. The characteristics of respondents in the 2 survey cycles were similar, except respondents in 2013-2014 were wealthier. In our adjusted model, respondents in 2013-2014 had lower odds of reporting retiree coverage than respondents in 2005 (adjusted odds ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.77-0.99). This represents an absolute reduction in the probability of receiving retiree coverage of up to 3.4%.InterpretationOur analysis suggests that the rate of retiree health insurance has declined for Canadians with similar characteristics over the past decade. As we know insurance coverage has a strong association with use of treatments such as prescription drugs and dental care, this decline may result in decreased access to treatment and is an issue that warrants further investigation.
Project description:Over the past 25 years, the gap between the increase in health insurance costs and workers' wages has significantly expanded. This trend has led to significant concerns about healthcare affordability, with surveys revealing conflicting opinions regarding whether hospitals or health insurance companies bear the blame for escalating costs. To better understand these dynamics, we examined consumer price indices for health insurance, hospital services, and professional services from 2006 to 2023 using Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Our analysis shows that the hospital price index rose steadily between 2006 and 2023, faster than insurance premiums or professional services. To examine whether differences in underlying costs are driving higher hospital price increases, we evaluated the profit margins of hospitals and health insurance companies using the National Academy for State Health Policy''s Hospital Cost Tool and National Association of Insurance Commissioners Industry Reports. Our findings reveal that hospitals (for-profit and nonprofit) have consistently maintained higher profit margins than insurance companies. As health insurance costs continue to weigh heavily on working Americans, our analysis suggests that high hospital prices drive insurance premiums.
Project description:Using data from Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database between 2009 and 2015, we studied the effects of medical and recreational marijuana laws on opioid prescribing in employer-sponsored health insurance. We used a differences-in-differences (DD) approach and found that the implementation of medical marijuana laws (MMLs) and recreational marijuana laws (RMLs) reduced morphine milligram equivalents per enrollee by 7% and 13%, respectively. The reduction associated with MMLs was predominately in people aged 55-64, whereas the reduction associated with RMLs was largely in people aged 35-44 and aged 45-54. Our findings suggest that both MMLs and RMLs have the potential to reduce opioid prescribing in the privately insured population, especially for the middle-aged population.
Project description:ImportanceCosts of employer-sponsored health care benefits have increased faster than workers' wages for several decades, with important implications for disparities in earnings and wage stagnation.ObjectiveTo quantify how growth in employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) premiums may have been associated with reduced annual wages, disparities in earnings by race and ethnicity and wage level, and wage stagnation among US families with ESI.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, serial cross-sectional analyses were performed of US families receiving ESI from 1988 to 2019 based on data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, Kaiser Employer Health Benefits Survey, US Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, and federal payroll taxation rates. Statistical analysis was conducted from February 2022 to July 2023.Main outcomes and measuresPercentage of annual compensation associated with health care premiums (after accounting for tax deductibility) and lost wages associated with growth in cost of premiums from 1989 to 2019 based on 1988 compensation. To assess disparities, analyses were stratified by race and ethnicity and wage level.ResultsIn 1988, 44.7 million individuals (head of household: mean [SD] age, 43.3 [13.1] years; 30.1% were female; and 2.4% identified as Asian, 6.2% as Hispanic, 8.6% as non-Hispanic Black, and 82.8% as non-Hispanic White) were covered by ESI family plans; this number remained similar in 2019 at 44.8 million individuals (head of household: mean [SD] age, 47.1 [12.9] years; 41.3% were female; and 1.3% identified as Asian, 9.9% as Hispanic, 9.9% as non-Hispanic Black, and 78.9% as non-Hispanic White). In 1988, the mean (SD) household size was 3.3 (1.3) people, and in 2019, it was 3.4 (1.3) people. If ESI costs had remained at the same proportion of the 1988 average compensation package, then in 2019, the median US family with ESI could have earned $8774 (95% CI, $8354-$9195) more in annual wages. During all 32 years, health care premiums as a percentage of compensation were greater for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic families than for non-Hispanic White families. By 2019, 13.8% (95% CI, 13.5%-14.1%) of compensation among non-Hispanic White families with ESI went to premium costs compared with 19.2% (95% CI, 18.8%-19.7%) among non-Hispanic Black families and 19.8% (19.3%-20.3%) among Hispanic families with ESI. In 2019, health care premiums as a percentage of compensation at the 95th percentile of earnings for families with ESI were 3.9% (95% CI, 3.8%-4.0%) compared with 28.5% (95% CI, 27.8%-29.2%) at the 20th percentile of earnings. From 1988 to 2019, the mean cumulative lost earnings associated with growth in health care premiums for the median US family with ESI was $125 340 (95% CI, $120 155-$130 525) in 2019 dollars, 4.7% of earnings over the 32-year period.Conclusions and relevanceThis economic evaluation of US families receiving ESI suggests that 3 decades of increasing health care premiums were likely associated with reduced annual earnings and increased earnings inequality by race and ethnicity and wage level and were meaningfully associated with wage stagnation.