• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Jesus watching the most hateful people claiming to be his followers

If you voted for Trump, you don’t get to speak about ethics, morals, or rule of law.

Giving in to doom is how we fail to fight for ourselves & one another.

DeSantis transforming Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Polls are now a reliable indicator of what corporate Republicans want us to think.

This country desperately needs a functioning fourth estate.

This isn’t Democrats spending madly. This is government catching up.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the gop

One lie, alone, tears the fabric of reality.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

If you don’t believe freedom is for everybody, then the thing you love isn’t freedom, it is privilege.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

You are so fucked. Still, I wish you the best of luck.

’Where will you hide, Roberts, the laws all being flat?’

This really is a full service blog.

Every reporter and pundit should have to declare if they ever vacationed with a billionaire.

The real work of an opposition party is to oppose.

The gop is a fucking disgrace.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.

We’re watching the self-immolation of the leading world power on a level unprecedented in human history.

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Risk Adjustment:Vox::Narrow Networks:538

Risk Adjustment:Vox::Narrow Networks:538

by David Anderson|  September 6, 20164:43 pm| 9 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance, Free Markets Solve Everything, Get off my grass you damned kids

FacebookTweetEmail

There are two recent health policy articles by interested lay expertise sites that have me scratching my head. In Vox’s case, I am seeing a conclusion without context. For 538, I can not figure out the model that leads to a core assumption. These sites’ jobs are to inform the public and in these cases I think they can do a better job of their job.

Let’s start with Vox as Sarah Kliff looks at a Society of Actuaries analysis of risk scores on the individual market. She draws a very strong conclusion.

Between 2014 and 2015, SOA finds that Obamacare’s average risk scores went up by 5 percent. This means that the overall pool of people on the marketplace were sicker in 2015 than 2014. You can see the data here, in a table from the report.

The Society of Actuaries draws a much weaker conclusion

Risk measures published in the CCIIO release show that the average measure of risk increased from 2014 to 2015. Increased risk scores may be a combination of identification through better coding as well as a measure of the actual population health….

The program is still too immature to draw conclusive inferences about the future of the pool or marketplaces.

Vox saw a number that went up (bad) and wrote a story with no context.

As an insurance professional who spent half of today working on risk adjustment optimization problems, there are several critical pieces of context that need to be addressed before deciding whether or not the real increase in reported risk scores is an actual story or an artifact of Red Queen Race incentives. We know the following about 2014 and 2015 Exchanges.
1) They are a new program
2) There are a lot of new insurers in a revamped market segment
3) There is very thin claims histories
4) Significant 2014 marketshare went to technically naive insurers
5) The population was sick
6) Significant population moves occurred
7) Significant gaps in medical history were common for a large proportion of covered lives.

With this context, I have no idea how to evaluate whether or not an increase in reported risk scores is an actual increase in pool illness burden or merely an artifact of carriers getting better at data mining historical data for probable diagnosis codes and then getting their PCP’s to code those high value diagnoses on a processed claim. Co-ops that were surprised by high cost members in 2014 may have aggressively chased for treated but non-coded diagnoseses in 2015. We don’t know that. I strongly suspect better code chasing is a significant element of the increase in risk scores. I can’t tell you how much though. If we wanted to get a good clue on that we either need to look at some harder to game numbers like age/gender breakdowns or the number of kidney transplants per 1,000,000 covered months or the number of Hep-C cures dispensed. Are those numbers changing up or down? Or more basically, is the Per Member Per Month costs dramatically changing? None of these numbers in and of themselves are dispositive, but triangulation plus industry specific knowledge allows for a coherent story and vision to be built.

If they are going up, they support a contention that the risk score is mostly reflecting actual pool health risk. If they are flat or declining, then the story is better coding efficiency.

Now 538’s Tim Mullaney looks at the problem with broad network, high reimbursement Exchange carriers. He quotes an analyst that is offering an implicit model that I can’t figure out:

More importantly, middle-class customers who are used to group insurance are often much less willing to accept narrow networks than poorer people who are glad for any coverage, said Les Funtleyder, a health care fund manager at E Squared Capital. That could put insurers in a catch-22: Given the prices individuals are willing to pay, insurers can’t afford to offer networks that are broad enough to attract healthy customers. And if insurers can’t lure the young, healthy consumers who haven’t yet signed up for Obamacare, they can’t turn a profit. “It’s just math,” Funtleyder said. “If you give people more benefits, it costs more.”

From my point of view, there is a model here that I think is anchored in Employer Sponsored Insurance land (where costs are extremely well hidden) that expects magical pixie dust to allow for plans that don’t say no to do so cheaply.

What insurers need are lots of low cost people. Preferably those people are low costs because they are intrinsically healthy. They could be low cost because they just don’t get problems addressed. We need low cost people to cover the people with a double organ transplant scheduled tonight. The last buyer for a policy is fundamentally indifferent between the peace of mind of paying their monthly premium as an almost guaranteed net loss and the fear of getting hit with a quarter million dollar claim. This model assumes that the last person to make the buy and the first person to make the no-buy decision are both very healthy with very few anticipated medical expenses. The low cost buyer is mainly concerned about price not network for a given actuarial value because in the vast majority of cases, they are either not touching the network at all, or they are superficially touching it for perhaps a well visit, perhaps a flu shot, and perhaps an urgent care visit. They don’t care that they don’t have the option value of going to a high end specialty hospital for cancer as they don’t think they’ll get cancer as a 26 year old triathlete. They don’t care that care coordination/case management runs people through the ringer to get an MRI authorized as they most likely will not need an MRI. They care that the premium competes for scarce dollars and that the incremental spread between the monthly premium and the mandate penalty is more than their expected value plus a risk aversion multiplier.

Healthy people who anticipate that they will remain healthy are the least likely people to buy on network as a core selling point. They buy on price. Networks matter for sick individuals. 538 is allowing for a very unusual model to be advanced and there is no commentary to either support why this implicit model makes sense or that there is a problem with the statement.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Early Afternoon Open Thread
Next Post: Open Thread: Trump Tries to Buy Off OTHER Repub Attorneys-General… »

Reader Interactions

9Comments

  1. 1.

    Mai.naem.mobile

    September 6, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Richard,i was waiting for you to post. Phoenix Health Plan announced last Thursday that they will pull out of the exchange for Maricopa County(Metro Phoenix area+ Pop. 5M+) in 2017. This leaves Cigna as the sole insurer on the exchange. There are 120K people getting coverage from the exchange this year. Aetna has made lots of $$$ from AHCCCS(our Medicaid) and I think they should not be able to get that contract unless they are on the exchange.

  2. 2.

    WarMunchkin

    September 6, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    4) Significant 2014 marketshare when to technically naive insurers

    Think this one is “went to”?

    Cool post, I’ve been reading a lot of alarmist articles.

  3. 3.

    catclub

    September 6, 2016 at 5:18 pm

    @Mai.naem.mobile:

    I think they should not be able to get that contract unless they are on the exchange.

    Another needed tweak to the ACA. Impossible while the GOP blocks any legislation.

  4. 4.

    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet

    September 6, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    I really like the way you explained this one, Richard. Too many people who pontificate about insurance don’t seem to really consider that there are groups of people in the marketplace who really do have vastly different expectations and motivations (broad network, keeping one’s doctors vs lowest possible price because they won’t be making any claims anyway vs family history of 10T weights being dropped on them and expensive bills vs …)

    It tangentially reminds me of working for a grad school prof who did a monthly survey of famous economists to get their prediction of various economic metrics (to try to figure out how good forecasters did their magic). I was just a humble work-study student, but I had an argument with his RA about the respondents’s motivations. It seemed to me that the biggest motivating factor was the people being surveyed wanted to be right or at least better than their peers, not that the wanted to have the best model with all the dotted i’s and crossed t’s. If their model gave a number that their gut said was a bit off, they would find a way to tweak their model to try to give them a better chance of being “right” compared to their peers. The reward wasn’t having the most rigorous or elegant model, but beating the game. The RA didn’t accept that, and thought the desire to have the best model was what mattered.

    Similarly, people playing the “buy insurance” game want to come out ahead at the end of the year (or as little in the hole as possible) given their constraints, and they decide on their own what “ahead” means.

    Thanks again.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  5. 5.

    Robert

    September 6, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    I suspect the 538 quote is actually more applicable to individuals who want to complain about something, not those who refuse to purchase. Also for those sufficiently healthy and financially well off it may be a reason to at least play with the idea of trying to find an off-exchange policy, and then complain about that. So yeah in the end likely not a huge factor.

  6. 6.

    lahke

    September 6, 2016 at 9:36 pm

    Hi, Richard: you should add the transition to ICD-10 to your list of factors. My company is seeing a risk score bump that seems to have no other cause.

  7. 7.

    Richard Mayhew

    September 6, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    @lahke: very good point. I just cry in the corner when think of the recalibration of all our models from 9 to 10 so I forgot that

  8. 8.

    Lahke

    September 7, 2016 at 12:59 am

    @Richard Mayhew: What’s weird is that we started getting more diagnosis codes per claim with ICD 10, which is the opposite of what we expected. And this was before we started chart-chasing.

  9. 9.

    Adam Pelavin

    September 7, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Glad someone’s pointing this out. The fact that risk scores and reinsurance claims are weakly correlated (fig.8) suggests coding as a dominant factor, as does the “popular estimate” cited that the MA risk score increase due to coding from the first year of the program to the second was ~5%.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - PaulB - Olympic National Park: Lake Quinault 1
Image by PaulB (5/17/25)

Recent Comments

  • BellyCat on Saturday Morning Open Thread: A Ray of Hope (May 17, 2025 @ 12:15pm)
  • BellyCat on Saturday Morning Open Thread: A Ray of Hope (May 17, 2025 @ 12:12pm)
  • columbusqueen on Excellent Read: ‘This is Democrats’ Masterclass in Resistance’ (May 17, 2025 @ 12:12pm)
  • Chief Oshkosh on Excellent Read: ‘This is Democrats’ Masterclass in Resistance’ (May 17, 2025 @ 12:11pm)
  • Ben Cisco on Saturday Morning Open Thread: A Ray of Hope (May 17, 2025 @ 12:08pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!