• 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.

Ron DeSantis, the grand wizard, oops, governor of FL

The Giant Orange Man Baby is having a bad day.

He seems like a smart guy, but JFC, what a dick!

They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵

“In the future, this lab will be a museum. don’t touch it.”

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

A consequence of cucumbers

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

Second rate reporter says what?

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

That pie keeps getting more and more forks, reducing anyone’s chance of even a Perot.

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

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

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
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Improving choice in the complex ACA choice environment

Improving choice in the complex ACA choice environment

by David Anderson|  June 4, 20219:05 am| 10 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance

FacebookTweetEmail

At the Health Affairs Blog, Patrick O’Mahen and I lay out the challenging choice environment for people trying to buy insurance on Healthcare.gov.  We know from the Medicare Advantage research space that choice quality crashes when people are faced with more than fifteen choices.  The price of bad choice is most heavily borne by individuals with cognitive decline and limited resources.  Overly burdensome choice complexity is a regressive tax.

Improving choice in the complex ACA choice environment We first looked at the number of unique plans that were subsidy eligible on Healthcare.gov from 2014-2021 on a population weighed basis so that a county with 2,000 residents and 2 plans counts weigh less than a county with a million residents and 65 plans.  We sliced the universe into four buckets and considered 50 or more plans to be an OUCH indicator for plan choice.  That is a lot of choice.  And it is an amount of choice that varies considerably over time.  2021 had 45% of people on Healthcare.gov looking at 50 or more plans.  This was similar to 2015 and 2016, but very different from 2018-2020.

I think there is a lot of very interesting work that can take this image as a jumping off point, but that is not where I’m going this morning.

Instead, Patrick and I propose that states and exchanges bear the burden of expertise by offering options where the individual puts in some basic criteria such as :

  • Maximum premium to pay
  • Have to have doctors/hospitals
  • Current Drugs
  • Measures of liquidity/assets (ability to afford a deductible etc)

And then from these sets of relatively clear preferences, expert decision support systems would be used to pick a pretty good if not perfect plan.

Another option is for states to integrate their exchange functionality with other state based social welfare databases so if other data systems indicate that an individual is eligible for a zero premium plan, the individual is placed into  a zero premium plan with the option to opt out.

 

In both these cases, the entity that is able to handle complexity and expertise bears the cost of complexity instead of the individual.  These steps would likely increase enrollment and improve the risk pool as the hassle and attention costs of enrollment can be waived away for individuals who are likely to be relatively low users of healthcare services.  I think that expert decision support and the assumption of administrative burden by the state is where most of the action will be over the next couple of years as these frictions dominate modest changes in net premiums that rejiggering subsidy regimes can do.  I also think that the choice environment is likely to get more crowded in 2022-2023 and beyond as the large national insurers are re-entering the markets en masse and the current insurers are either holding constant or expanding their service areas.

 

Sidenote 1: Exhibit 1 in a wide variety of forms has been the image/graphic/exhibit that has been lodged between my eyes the most for the past six months.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Friday Morning Open Thread: Another TianAnMen Square Anniversary
Next Post: Sad Day for Raven and All of Us: Goodbye Bohdi Sad Day for Raven and All of Use: Goodbye Bohdi»

Reader Interactions

10Comments

  1. 1.

    Thistle313

    June 4, 2021 at 9:26 am

    When I retired last year, my employer provided access to that kind of system to help me navigate Medicare signup. Put in my meds, my docs, and it showed my best choices for both traditional Medicare and Medicare advantage plans. It was great.

  2. 2.

    Lobo

    June 4, 2021 at 10:39 am

    One of your key statements here is, “Overly burdensome choice complexity is a regressive tax.”  Overly burdensome “administrative friction” could be considered a regressive tax also.  You are providing the language to start framing this in a better way.  Thanks.  I think there is another paper there.

    On another note, as Americans we fall into the trap of “the perfect”.  A lot of resources are spent on this quest instead of accepting “pretty good”.  The problem of integrating this into social services is that their systems are not the most up-to-date and suffer from a lack of technical staffing.  So who is the entity that can bear the cost of complexity becomes the question.   Interesting analysis.

  3. 3.

    Just Chuck

    June 4, 2021 at 11:24 am

    @Lobo: When it comes to health insurance, I think most people are looking for “least bad” rather than “perfect”.  There’s a built-in assumption that anything that might possibly not be covered will result in being bilked for their life savings over it.  Hell, that assumption is often there for things that are covered.  The level of distrust people have in both the product and the vendor can’t be overstated.

  4. 4.

    David Anderson

    June 4, 2021 at 11:37 am

    @Just Chuck: I agree — the choice threshold should, in my opinion, seek to avoid “piss-poor” even at the expense of giving up some probability of selecting “perfect”.

    There is a growing body of research (Abaluck et al) that finds quality of insurers matters a lot on mortality/morbidity and people don’t buy on these attributes so that excluding the truly “piss-poor” plans would have a modest effect on choice menu size but significant mortality improvements.

  5. 5.

    David Anderson

    June 4, 2021 at 11:53 am

    @Lobo: GET BEHIND ME SATAN

    No more new paper ideas until after Christmas and the 1st semester of coursework.


    With that said, I think you’re right, there is something very interesting to start poking at here.  Ben Handel has some good work on this under development (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ee3119aa4c9ed2dd490b6ff/t/5ef258c31703e25727e59132/1592940748952/HKMS_draft.pdf) and then there is a whole Public Administration literature that is digging into the incidence and costs of administrative burden on a more granular level.

  6. 6.

    dnfree

    June 4, 2021 at 12:08 pm

    @Lobo: yes, now we’re in systems design territory and finding out what information each system maintains, is it accessible and if so how, is it current and accurate information, how can they be improved if needed, how can they be merged, how can they feed each other.  It can take a long time to put this together, and of course there will be a lot of different systems—federal, state, local, of differing quality and accessibility. Toward the end of my long career, it’s amazing how much time went into exactly this kind of problem—getting data coordinated.

  7. 7.

    Fake Irishman

    June 4, 2021 at 12:20 pm

    Great to see this come out. Now there’s at least one scholarly collaboration that arose out of a connection in Balloon Juice. (God help us all)

  8. 8.

    Fake Irishman

    June 4, 2021 at 12:40 pm

    One thing that Dave doesn’t mention here is that target date retirement plans already do a lot of this for retirement investing, which is what inspired this piece:  you pick when you intend to retire, and then you pretty much check your balance twice a year. professionals take care of the rest for a very very low fee. So the idea here is: what are some things states can do to recreate that sort of ease?

  9. 9.

    Quaker in a basement

    June 4, 2021 at 1:00 pm

    As a prob/stat student, I have to say this is the best use of a stacked bar chart I’ve ever seen.

  10. 10.

    Lobo

    June 4, 2021 at 1:12 pm

    Everyone:  I always love this dialogue.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

2024 Pet Calendars!

Order 2024 Calendars

Recent Comments

  • Geminid on Two Peas, Same Pod (Dec 5, 2023 @ 8:43pm)
  • Ruckus on “Just be as quiet as a mouse” (Dec 5, 2023 @ 8:43pm)
  • Splitting Image on Tuesday Evening Open Thread: Tuberville Backs Down (Mostly) (Dec 5, 2023 @ 8:43pm)
  • Omnes Omnibus on Tuesday Evening Open Thread: Tuberville Backs Down (Mostly) (Dec 5, 2023 @ 8:42pm)
  • Jackie on Tuesday Evening Open Thread: Tuberville Backs Down (Mostly) (Dec 5, 2023 @ 8:41pm)

🎈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

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions: Montana

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

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)

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

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Walter’s Fund (Athenspets)

Donate

Four Directions Montana

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 © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

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

Email sent!