• 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.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Washington Post Catch and Kill, not noticeably better than the Enquirer’s.

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

Fight them, without becoming them!

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

The low info voters probably won’t even notice or remember by their next lap around the goldfish bowl.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

This fight is for everything.

One lie, alone, tears the fabric of reality.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

Lick the third rail, it tastes like chocolate!

It is not hopeless, and we are not helpless.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Following reporting rules is only for the little people, apparently.

I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

America is going up in flames. The NYTimes fawns over MAGA celebrities. No longer a real newspaper.

Republicans got rid of McCarthy. Democrats chose not to save him.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

A norm that restrains only one side really is not a norm – it is a trap.

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 / Cherry picking and the department of the obvious

Cherry picking and the department of the obvious

by David Anderson|  November 15, 201612:25 pm| 11 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance, All we want is life beyond the thunderdome

FacebookTweetEmail

NBER released an interesting paper this week (#22382 )

a long theoretical literature describes how contract design can also be used to screen consumers by profitability. In this paper, we study this type of screening in the ACA Health Insurance Exchanges. We first show that despite large regulatory transfers that neutralize selection incentives for most consumer types, some consumers are unprofitable in a way that is predictable by their prescription drug demand. Then, using a difference-in-differences strategy that compares Exchange formularies where these selection incentives exist to employer plan formularies where they do not, we show that Exchange insurers design formularies as screening devices that are differentially unattractive to unprofitable consumer types. This results in inefficiently low levels of coverage for the corresponding drugs in equilibrium. Although this type of contract distortion has been highlighted in the prior theoretical literature, until now empirical evidence has been rare.

Or what was written here in July 2014:

Insurance comnpanies still want to tilt their risk pools to be as healthy as possible while letting their competitors eat the costs of covering the known sick. This is despite some back-end risk adjustment mechanisms that are supposed to transfer money from health plans that are composed of overwhelmingly healthier than average members to health plans that are composed of sicker than typical members. Plans want to be as attractive as possible to healthy people and as unattractive to known sick people. This incentive structure creates an adverse selection mechanism collective action problem. We are seeing this problem emerge with AIDS/HIV drugs in Florida.

What do I mean by an adverse selection collective action problem?

Let’s assume that any given insurance company wants to minimize their HIV treatment costs and that they are also required to cover any HIV patient who signs up with them. The goal then for the insurance company is to make themselves as unattractive as legally possible to HIV patients. Futzing around with networks is possible, but since most HIV treating docs and facilities are common providers for lots of much healthier members, this will not be too effective. Additionally plans are required to contract with Ryan White AIDS clinics. The simplest legal way to target unattractiveness to HIV patients is to make the drugs as expensive as possible….

Even relatively inexpensive AIDS mediciation for the first insurance company with this idea would get put on the most expensive formulary where pre-authorizations, high co-insurance and high co-pays apply until the member reaches the out of pocket maximum. This anti-social but rationally based business model should make the plan very unnattractive to individuals with HIV. They will logically look at the market and look for a plan that does not completely fuck them over.

The same logic applies to diabetics, cancer survivors, transplant recipients and other high cost individuals.

And here is where problems emerge. Once one plan in a market decides to make themselves as unattractive as possible, every other plan has to either follow suit in making themselves unattractive or be willing to take on massive health costs as they become the preferred plan for HIV positive individuals. At that point, there is a local death spiral as the attractive plan has to raise premiums to cover costs which drives them away from the Second Silver subsidy determination point, which then drives away cost sensitive but fairly healthy individuals from the plan. So a region will see either the “nice” plan become a “nasty” plan as a self-defense measure or that “nice” plan will leave the market so the new baseline is “nasty”. It is Gresham’s law for health insurance.

The NBER paper provides a static analysis while somehow this foul mouth blog provided a dynamic analysis two years ahead of time.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Then Why Did You Run for President You Moron?
Next Post: The Midday of the Plastic Sporks Begins »

Reader Interactions

11Comments

  1. 1.

    Big R

    November 15, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Huh. Maybe there’s some smart people at this foul mouthed blog.

  2. 2.

    SenyorDave

    November 15, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    Sometimes it sucks to be the smartest person in the room, now you know how Obama feels. No snark intended Richard, your stuff is fantastic. I’ve learned enough to appreciate how difficult this field is.

  3. 3.

    Major Major Major Major

    November 15, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    @Big R: Nahhhh.

  4. 4.

    Hunter Gathers

    November 15, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    Before last week, I was looking to get the family a health plan through the exchange for next year. Should I even bother?

  5. 5.

    Richard Mayhew

    November 15, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    @Hunter Gathers: Yes

    Most likely scenario is the Exchanges will exist for 2017.

    If there is a replacement plan, it will most likely rely on a continual coverage mandate where if you have coverage for the past 15 of 18 months or something like that, a new insurer can not underwrite you, they have to offer a flat rate. If you don’t have that history, they’ll underwrite and can either jack up your rate, deny aspects of coverage or turn you down completely

    So build your continual coverage history now

  6. 6.

    JPL

    November 15, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    @Richard Mayhew: According to this, 2018 also.

    https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/798586360777023488

  7. 7.

    Mnemosyne

    November 15, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    @Hunter Gathers:

    Richard is more of an expert than I am, but in the pre-Obamacare days, it was easy for insurers to refuse insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, but somewhat more difficult for them to throw you off once you had it. So, better overall to have the insurance.

  8. 8.

    Richard Mayhew

    November 15, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    @Mnemosyne: Yep… dropping coverage for a person who was expensive was something insurers could and would do but it was a pain in the ass. not covering someone was easy and cheap and did not involve expensive lawyers

  9. 9.

    currants

    November 15, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    @SenyorDave: Agreed. Ya RAWK, Richard.

  10. 10.

    laura

    November 15, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    I’d like to give a shout out to NBER! They do awesome work in compiling the data AND providing a narrative that explains the data in layman’s terms.
    I had the privilege of sharing space with NBER in the winter of 2011 while the program wandered all over Cambridge.
    The NBER working papers and research documents are publicly available and worth your time and effort.
    http://www.nebr.org

  11. 11.

    Richard Mayhew

    November 15, 2016 at 10:14 pm

    @laura: agreed nber makes me sound smarter every day.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - BarcaChicago  - Off the Gunflint Trail/Boundary Waters 8
Image by BarcaChicago (7/11/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Martin on Fox News Friday Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 9:14pm)
  • dmsilev on Fox News Friday Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 9:10pm)
  • danielx on Fox News Friday Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 9:08pm)
  • Ruckus on Fox News Friday Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 9:02pm)
  • Ruckus on Friday Afternoon Distraction Open Thread: Get the Passport Stamped with All the Right Signals… (Jul 11, 2025 @ 9:00pm)

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
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

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

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

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

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

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!