• 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.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

I’m sure you banged some questionable people yourself. We’re allowed to grow past that.

An unpunished coup is a training exercise.

There is one struggling party in US right now, and it’s not the Democrats.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

It’s not hopeless, and we’re not helpless.

The new republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

“Cheese and Kraken paired together for the appetizer trial.”

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

… gradually, and then suddenly.

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

There are more Russians standing up to Putin than Republicans.

This really is a full service blog.

They’re not red states to be hated; they are voter suppression states to be fixed.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

Quote tweet friends, screenshot enemies.

Republicans in disarray!

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

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

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Reality always lies in wait for … Democrats.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • 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 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • 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

Recent Comments

  • wjca on Monday Evening Open Thread: Another ‘Rich’ Narcissist, Having A Bad Start to His Week (Apr 16, 2024 @ 2:03am)
  • Princess on Monday Evening Open Thread: Another ‘Rich’ Narcissist, Having A Bad Start to His Week (Apr 16, 2024 @ 1:37am)
  • artem1s on Late Night Weekend Wrap-Up Open Thread: Journamalism, Not A Dependable Profit Center (Apr 16, 2024 @ 1:05am)
  • wjca on Monday Evening Open Thread: Another ‘Rich’ Narcissist, Having A Bad Start to His Week (Apr 16, 2024 @ 12:58am)
  • wjca on Monday Evening Open Thread: Another ‘Rich’ Narcissist, Having A Bad Start to His Week (Apr 16, 2024 @ 12:55am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

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

Balloon Juice Posts

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

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

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

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

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 © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

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

Email sent!