• 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.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

I really should read my own blog.

Ah, the different things are different argument.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

This really is a full service blog.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Hot air and ill-informed banter

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

White supremacy is terrorism.

You cannot shame the shameless.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

Good lord, these people are nuts.

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

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

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

Dead end MAGA boomers crying about Talyor Swift being a Dem is my kind of music. Turn it up.

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

Democrats have delivered the Square Deal, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and now… the Big Joe Biden Deal.

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 / Inertia and plan re-enrollment

Inertia and plan re-enrollment

by David Anderson|  February 22, 20221:38 pm| 10 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance

FacebookTweetEmail

Coleman Drake, Conor Ryan and Bryan Dowd have a new paper in the Journal of Public Economics that attempts to figure out why 81% of people who re-enroll in their ACA plans stay in the same plan for the next year. They posit three types of plausible forms of inertia**:

  • Preference for the same provider network
  • Inattention to availability of options
  • Hassle costs of switching between plans

What matters?

We find that eliminating inattention and hassle costs would reduce repeated health plan choice by 53 percentage points and that interventions to reduce inattention and hassle costs are complements. Inattention and hassle costs cost consumers over a billion dollars in foregone consumer surplus in 2018, roughly $1,790 per household per year or half the annual premium paid by the median household, with inattention accounting for the largest source of forgone surplus.

Why does this matter?

The ACA individual health insurance markets are messy choice environments. The California markets that this team (and others, myself included) are comparatively cleaner choice environments as benefit designs are standardized and game playing is limited but relative premiums change every year, both net of subsidy and gross, insurers enter and exit and life happens so risk preferences change.  We would expect in a perfectly frictionless market that a lot  of people are reasonably happy with their insurance in year 1 but would want to switch to something else in year 2. We really don’t see that a lot.  This lack of movement means insurers compete hard to get people to sign up in the first year and then can go on cruise control with the objective of not overly pissing off people who are profitable to leave in the out years.  That is not a particularly well functioning market.

The researchers found that taste for network continuity is barely relevant in their modeling.  The two big factors that drive inertia are inattention and hassle costs.  Inattention happens when people just don’t go and look.  We know that automatic re-enrollment is really good at getting people to stay covered but at the same time automatic re-enrollment places people into objectively inferior dominated plans. Nudges and technocratic solutions such as re-working the automatic re-enrollment matching algorithms could significantly reduce the inattention costs.  But the big problem (in my opinion) is that very few people actively like to look at their health insurance (I’m excluding myself from this statement).  Inattention is a huge challenge.

The second challenge is the costs of switching insurance are high.  Some of these costs of compliance costs which means setting up a new payment mechanism, and potentially re-running previously approved prior authorizations for medications and treatments.  Some of these costs are information.  How does Insurer X pay for Drug Z?  Can I just make an appointment or do I need to get a referral?  Some of these costs are psychological — does my new insurance work the way I think it should/does?  For someone who has medical needs, knowing that their current system mostly, sort of kind of, works reduces risk compared to transitioning to a new system that promises to be better after a significant mental investment with uncertain and future outcomes.

The researchers argue that eliminating inattention and hassle costs would lead to three times as much switching behavior.  This would dramatically change the structure of the marketplaces as insurers would no longer be competing mostly on attracting first year buyers who are likely buying mostly on price, but they would need to be competing on retention as well. I also think that this counterfactual universe would significantly stress current risk adjustment systems as there would be less aggressive coding and ineffectient choice may act as an anti-selection mechanism.

 

** DISCLOSURE: I write with Coleman all the time.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « President Biden Update on Russia and Ukraine (LIVE)
Next Post: Rick Scott’s Radical Republican Manifesto »

Reader Interactions

10Comments

  1. 1.

    ronno2018

    February 22, 2022 at 1:49 pm

    It just seems a shame our system is such a kludge. Life is stressful enough without having to make impenetrable choices about health insurance every year.

    Are there any websites that run an algorithm to choose which plan? Heck they could take a commission or charge a fee to walk the user through a survey of their health needs and finances.

  2. 2.

    narya

    February 22, 2022 at 2:22 pm

    If I had to shop the market, I would want to maintain my provider networks–and good luck figuring out whether your docs/hospital/etc. take YOUR specific plan. There are so many names with very slight tweaks, and sometimes docs take one but not another very similarly named plan. And, sometimes, good luck getting anyone to confirm that your providers ARE in the plan. That is, I think the information costs are VERY high. If I know that my docs take this plan, and I know how to get the care I need, then I don’t want to switch, especially if the risk I’m running is that someone is going to “yes! it’s covered!” and then I find out that no, no it’s not, and I’m stuck with that plan for a year.

    I agree that if there were a relatively simple mechanism for making sure that the new plan covers the things I need covered, at a predictable cost, sure, switching would be an option. But I can’t help but think that insurers game the system in precisely this way. Even with my employer-sponsored coverage, there are two PPO plans, and my docs take one (the more expensive one) but not the other, and I had to dig a bit to find that out.

  3. 3.

    Roger Moore

    February 22, 2022 at 2:30 pm

    @narya:

    That is, I think the information costs are VERY high. If I know that my docs take this plan, and I know how to get the care I need, then I don’t want to switch, especially if the risk I’m running is that someone is going to “yes! it’s covered!” and then I find out that no, no it’s not, and I’m stuck with that plan for a year.

    This is absolutely true.  If I’m reading what David says correctly, this uses data from California, which takes steps to weed out confusingly similar plans, so this actually represents a best-case scenario.  Most places, the information costs will be even higher.  And, unfortunately, sticking with your plan doesn’t always mean you’ll have the same list of providers.  Providers drop out for a variety of reasons, so inertia is no guarantee you’ll continue to get what you expect.

  4. 4.

    satby

    February 22, 2022 at 2:55 pm

    I completely cop to inertia in my Medicare plan choice. This shouldn’t be so hard to figure out.  It’s annoying enough and I’m healthy enough that I just don’t revisit it. It’s a completely ridiculous system for a first world nation.

  5. 5.

    NeenerNeener

    February 22, 2022 at 3:23 pm

    My father stayed in the same Medicare Supplemental plan long after he should have, because he didn’t know there were cheaper options. It wasn’t until I went to work for his insurance company that he found out he could get better insurance for a whole lot less.

    I’m planning on moving to a different, warmer state when I retire but I’m dreading having to research and get new insurance, on top of trying to find a new GP and new specialists….and a place to live.

  6. 6.

    ProfDamatu

    February 22, 2022 at 3:34 pm

    These posts are so interesting to me; they really drive home how those of us in smaller markets are living in a different ACA world! As in, for 2022, in my area, we had two insurers to choose from, and only about 18 different plans across all metal tiers. The array of options is definitely confusing for those who are new to the process, but ultimately – you’re either going with Anthem Healthkeepers, which pretty much makes it impossible to access the major regional academic medical center (or at least they used to), or Optima, which allows access but generally costs more across the board.

    I’m currently in the same plan (essentially) that I’ve had for the past couple of years, partly because almost all of my local providers are owned by the same parent company as the insurer (not quite a Kaiser situation, but you still don’t have to worry about out of network!), and partly because the insurer has a great track record of actually paying claims without balking. Which is worth a ton – to me, it’s worth the approximately $600 extra I pay in premiums per year.

  7. 7.

    Old Man Shadow

    February 22, 2022 at 3:36 pm

    Things would be so much simpler if they just issued everyone a National Health card and that was that. Want services? Show your National Health card. No billing to you. No surprises. No yearly struggle to predict your health care needs or weigh which plan will cost more or save you more. Just a card you show and boom… health care.

  8. 8.

    lredd

    February 22, 2022 at 4:04 pm

    Anecdata: we moved onto the exchange this month from employer insurance. One of the solid things many CA public agencies did was to align the group insurance plans with the exchange plans, so effectively we’re on the same plans we’ve been on for the last 25 years. Are they the cheapest options? Kinda don’t care – we’ve liked these plans, and we feel they are good value for money.

    Our ‘wealth strategy’ to cop a TV commercial term has always been to minimize risk. It only takes one situation that you aren’t well insured (in the colloquial sense) against to fuck up the best investment/savings strategy. It’s less important that you’re in a 6% interest investment over a 5% than it is that you don’t get exposed to a lawsuit, miss a loophole in your insurance that means your cancer treatment isn’t covered, etc.

  9. 9.

    joel hanes

    February 22, 2022 at 4:07 pm

    Comparative evaluation of competing insurance offerings is even more painful and murky than most people’s tax filings.

    I fucking hate doing it.

  10. 10.

    David Anderson

    February 22, 2022 at 6:10 pm

    @Old Man Shadow: 218-51-1-5

     

    There probably is a 1, no way in hell is there a 218-51 or 5.

     

    Organize and win that argument for at least half a generation

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Baud on Cold, Cruel Grey Dawn Open Thread: #DonSnoreleone (Apr 16, 2024 @ 5:08am)
  • Baud on Cold, Cruel Grey Dawn Open Thread: #DonSnoreleone (Apr 16, 2024 @ 5:04am)
  • Martin on Cold, Cruel Grey Dawn Open Thread: #DonSnoreleone (Apr 16, 2024 @ 4:58am)
  • Baud on Cold, Cruel Grey Dawn Open Thread: #DonSnoreleone (Apr 16, 2024 @ 4:55am)
  • lgerard on Cold, Cruel Grey Dawn Open Thread: #DonSnoreleone (Apr 16, 2024 @ 4:55am)

🎈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!