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

Before Header

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

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans can’t even be trusted with their own money.

A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.

Let there be snark.

🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Bad news for Ron DeSantis is great news for America.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

He really is that stupid.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Come on, man.

You cannot shame the shameless.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

“woke” is the new caravan.

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

A consequence of cucumbers

The most dangerous place for a black man in America is in a white man’s imagination.

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

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

We’ll be taking my thoughts and prayers to the ballot box.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

In short, I come down firmly on all sides of the issue.

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

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • 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 / Reinsurance on the residuals

Reinsurance on the residuals

by David Anderson|  May 17, 20239:24 am| 8 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance

FacebookTweetEmail

This is going to be geeky, even for me.

Yesterday, we talked about a new paper about the variance of the residuals after risk adjustment.  The TLDR of that paper is that risk is risky for insurers and therefore insurers will either charge higher premiums to compensate for residual risk or find ways to screen for risk on the residual.

This got me thinking last night.  I’m done with my comprehensive exams and can devote head space to fun projects again.  One of the projects that I’m revising this morning is reinsurance.  Reinsurance is a source of funds that pay for some segment of high cost claims. The ACA has an unusual reinsurance program in that it is not the only risk equalization measure.  The ACA also has substantial risk adjustment.  This produces weird incentives.

Let’s imagine a state has a reinsurance program where it pays 50% of the claims between $50,000 and $250,000.  The maximum payment is $100,000.  Let’s work through a simple example.  Imagine an idiosyncratic event such as a failed assassination attempt by a cat who was quite disappointed that you were five minutes late feeding them, and the recovery leads to a $200,000 allowed amount on the claim, the insurer pays the first $50,000, and then splits the next $150,000 in half.  The insurer will be on the hook for a total of $125,000.  This is straightforward.  Incentives aren’t particularly weird here.

Now let’s take another $200,000 claim in the ACA.  Let’s imagine that this is for maintenance therapy for someone with well controlled hemophilia.  The insurer again pays the first $50,000 on the claim, and then splits the next $150,000 so that the net spend for the insurer is $125,000.  This is just like the cat assassination scenario.  HOWEVER THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON.  Risk adjustment comes into play for predictable expenses.  Risk adjustment is a transfer from insurers that cover populations that code as predictably low cost to insurers whose populations code as predictably expensive.  A hemophilia diagnosis is worth about 73 times the standard statewide average premium.  This means the insurer gets a transfer receivable between $400,000 to $600,000 depending on the state.

WHAT?

This is weird.

The insurer faces a $200,000 claim but gets at least $400,000 from risk adjustment!  This is okay-ish as risk adjustment is supposed to be about group fit.  But it creates a profitable residual for the insurer for this particular individual which is what the paper we talked about yesterday plays with.  Risk adjustment assumes that on average, an insurer that gets lucky with an individual with a profitable residual  will also get unlucky with a patient in the same risk adjustment bucket who costs more than the average payment.  The residuals are assumed to sum to zero over a large enough group.  But there is more.

The insurer also gets a $75,000 payment from the state reinsurance fund.  NOW THAT IS MESSED UP!

Reinsurance is supposed to eat risk.  For a profitable residual individual, the insurer faces absolutely no tail risk.  In this scenario, reinsurance is a pure transfer to the profit side of the insurer ledger without buying out risk or anything else.

This is problematic.

States that have reinsurance programs should modify their programs so that the reinsurance payment is only paying for the residual after risk adjustment.  In the scenarios I laid out  above, reinsurance would still kick in for the cat assassination attempt but it would not kick in for the individual with well managed hemophilia.  Instead, states should, for the same budget, devote more funds to conditions that poorly risk adjust or don’t risk adjust at all such as one off genetic diseases, and conditions with high residual variance like hemophilia.  Doing that reduces selection incentives within a risk adjustment category.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « COVID-19 Coronavirus Updates: May 17, 2023
Next Post: George Santos »

Reader Interactions

  • Commenters
  • Filtered
  • Settings

Commenters

No commenters available.

  • Baud
  • BradF
  • Butch
  • Cheryl from Maryland
  • Damned at Random
  • David Anderson

Filtered Commenters

No filtered commenters available.

    Settings




    Settings are saved immediately; press X to close the box.

    8Comments

    1. 1.

      Baud

      May 17, 2023 at 9:33 am

      This is going to be geeky, even for me.

      My God! I didn’t think that was possible.

      Reply
    2. 2.

      Cheryl from Maryland

      May 17, 2023 at 9:48 am

      Let me get this straight — based on your analysis, insurance companies would then like individuals with long-term, if not permanent health issues because the risk adjustment compensates them more than for single incidents.  If this is true, why the hell did my husband and I go through hell with his insurer — BC/BS Federal Employee Program, for almost every treatment for his long-term health issues (he had several, one of which, sarcoid, could not be cured, only managed) because they did the usual, nope, not paying for it until we made their lives awful?  Does BC/BS FEP just suck at handling risk adjustment?  Is it possible he had odd/unusual/unpopular health ailments which couldn’t get risk adjustments?

      Reply
    3. 3.

      David Anderson

      May 17, 2023 at 9:52 am

      @Cheryl from Maryland: This only applies to the ACA program.  Other programs insurers have a strong incentive to run from risk

      Reply
    4. 4.

      David Anderson

      May 17, 2023 at 9:52 am

      @Baud: Try me

      Reply
    5. 5.

      BradF

      May 17, 2023 at 9:56 am

      As treatments and population-level predictions are known, you can make assumptions about hemophilia patients. But unless you carve out for individual conditions–like hemophilia, how can you also account for pricey precision cancer therapy, CAR-T, and genomics? As these outlier patients will surface each year because the therapies appear quicker than the regulators can keep up, the reinsurance regime is optimal second best. It may be easier for the feds to throw these costly patients in one bucket, even if the math does not add up for certain ones.

      Reply
    6. 6.

      Butch

      May 17, 2023 at 10:48 am

      @Cheryl from Maryland: BC/BS just found a whole pile of excuses to stick us with a $950 bill under our ACA insurance for a physical that was supposed to be completely covered.  We’re in an area where there’s no competition under the ACA or I’d be running away from BC/BS as fast as I could.

      Reply
    7. 7.

      Damned at Random

      May 17, 2023 at 2:53 pm

      I’m so relieved to be on Medicare and out of the commercial system. My GP’s practice is not taking new Medicare patients, but I’ve was with them long before my 65th birthday. No way they are throwing me back to the wolves

      Reply
    8. 8.

      Cheryl from Maryland

      May 17, 2023 at 7:11 pm

      @Butch: Sorry about that.  It hurts.  We got lucky because both of us were federal bureaucrats, and my husband was a lawyer with the FDA, so we fought it all tooth and nail and won. But it wasn’t easy, including research at the National Library of Medicine to refute the BC/BS BS claims.

      Reply

    Leave a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    If you don't see both the Visual and the Text tab on the editor, click here to refresh.

    Clear Comment

    To reply to more than one person, click the X to save & close the box.

    Primary Sidebar

    Recent Comments

    • Nelle on TGIFriday Open Thread: Not A Bad Week, Considering… (Jun 9, 2023 @ 8:27am)
    • Gin & Tonic on TGIFriday Open Thread: Not A Bad Week, Considering… (Jun 9, 2023 @ 8:27am)
    • mrmoshpotato on Cold Grey Dawn Indictment Open Thread: Current Status (Jun 9, 2023 @ 8:26am)
    • RevRick on TGIFriday Open Thread: Not A Bad Week, Considering… (Jun 9, 2023 @ 8:26am)
    • Gin & Tonic on TGIFriday Open Thread: Not A Bad Week, Considering… (Jun 9, 2023 @ 8:25am)

    Balloon Juice Meetups!

    All Meetups
    Seattle Meetup on Sat 5/13 at 5pm!

    🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

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

    Fundraising 2023-24

    Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

    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
    We All Need A Little Kindness
    Classified Documents: A Primer
    State & Local Elections Discussion

    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)

    Twitter / Spoutible

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

    Join the Fight!

    Join the Fight Signup Form
    All Join the Fight Posts

    Balloon Juice Events

    5/14  The Apocalypse
    5/20  Home Away from Home
    5/29  We’re Back, Baby
    7/21  Merging!

    Balloon Juice for Ukraine

    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

    Insert/edit link

    Enter the destination URL

    Or link to existing content

      No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.
        Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

        Email sent!