Employer-sponsored insurance: how much financial protection does it provide?

The authors examine the generosity of private employer health insurance coverage using data from two large national surveys of employers. Generosity is measured as the expected out-of-pocket share of medical expenditures for a standard population, given the provisions of the coverage. On average, those covered by employer-sponsored insurance can expect to pay 25 percent of expenditures out of pocket. There is little variability across plans in this share, though plans offered by smaller employers are somewhat less generous than those offered by larger employers. Individuals who incur high costs pay a smaller share of the bill than do those with lower levels of spending. The generosity of employer-sponsored plans increased slightly in the 1990s.

Participation in a public insurance program: subsidies, crowd-out, and adverse selection.

This paper examines how varying the level of subsidies affects participation in a public insurance program, crowd-out of private insurance, and adverse selection. We study the experience in Washington's Basic Health program in 1997. Findings show that adverse selection is not a problem in voluntary public programs. Increasing subsidies have only modest effects on participation in subsidized programs, though the gains are not at the expense of the private market. Overall participation in the subsidized plan is also modest, even though participants benefit from it. The challenge to policymakers is to find program design characteristics, beyond subsidies, that attract the uninsured.

The role of public insurance and the public delivery system in improving birth outcomes for low-income pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: Insurance expansions and service delivery system expansions are alternative policy instruments used to try to improve birth outcomes for low-income women. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this research is to investigate the effect of expansions of public insurance on access and birth outcomes for pregnant women and the role of different delivery systems in these outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experience in Florida during the years 1989-1994 is studied. Data are from linked birth certificates, hospital discharge data, Medicaid eligibility and claims files, and county health department records. Use of prenatal care and birthweight for low-income women is compared under different financing for prenatal care and for those using different delivery systems. Several approaches to control for self-selection are adopted, and similar results are obtained with each. RESULTS: Women enrolled in Medicaid have more prenatal care visits than the uninsured. Outcomes for those on Medicaid and the uninsured are significantly better if they receive care in the public health system than if they receive care in the private system-including private offices, clinics, and HMOs. Over time, the gap in outcomes between those in the public system and those receiving prenatal care from private physicians has diminished. CONCLUSIONS: Public insurance improves access to services, but the delivery system is a key factor in improving outcomes.

Public insurance expansions and crowd out of private coverage.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which persons enrolling in new public insurance programs substitute the public coverage for private insurance is of concern to policy makers. OBJECTIVE: To look at the extent of the substitution resulting from new state programs that cover a broad base of the low-income population and to look at the responses of both families and employers. METHODS: The March CPS for 1991-1993 and 1997-1998 were used to study the responses of families. Two large national surveys of employers with information about the employment-based system in 1993 and 1997 were used to study employer responses. The analysis looks at changes in coverage and employer offer rates before and after the public insurance expansions in selected states and compares these changes to those in a control group in states without expansions. RESULTS: Coverage by private insurance for low-income persons in states with expansions fell by more than expected based on the control states, indicating some substitution of public coverage for private insurance. Changes in employee coverage in own-employer sponsored insurance accord with this result. The expansion of public insurance has a bigger effect on employer offer decisions when a large share of its workers is eligible for public programs. CONCLUSIONS: The results show a significant substitution of public insurance for private coverage in the expansions studied. However, endogeneity of state expansion policies and possible confounding with other policy changes temper the conclusions. More recent public insurance expansions as part of the State Childrens' Health Insurance Program have adopted a range of methods to limit crowd out. Future research is needed to evaluate whether these procedures and rules have succeeded.