Choosing the 'best' plan in a health insurance exchange: actuarial value tells only part of the story.

In the health insurance exchanges that will come online in 2014, consumers will be able to compare health plans with respect to actuarial value, or the percentage of health care costs that a plan would pay for a standard population. This analysis illustrates the out-of-pocket costs that might result from plans with various plan designs and actuarial values. We find that average out-of-pocket expense declines as actuarial values rise, but two plans with similar actuarial values can produce very different outcomes for a given person. The overall affordability of a plan also will be influenced by age rating, income-related premium subsidies, and out-of-pocket subsidies. Actuarial value is a useful starting point for selecting a plan, but it does not pinpoint which plan will produce the best overall value for a particular person.

Financial protection afforded by employer-sponsored health insurance: current plan designs and high-deductible health plans.

This article provides the first national estimates of actuarial values and out-of-pocket spending from the era of nonrestrictive managed care that began in the late 1990s. Employer plans paid about 84 percent of total medical expense for those with employer-sponsored coverage in 2004, about 1 percent less than in 2000, and high users faced potential out of pocket spending in the thousands of dollars when they received a portion of their care out of network. Since 2004, more employers have offered plans with higher deductibles coupled with employer-funded personal accounts. These arrangements can result in low out of pocket costs for many employees, but high users will face substantially higher costs. Many employers adopting high-deductible plans are not contributing to personal accounts. Those who are concerned about higher out-of-pockets might consider income-related cost sharing, educational efforts to communicate the savings that can result from using in-network providers, and continued availability of managed care options that limit out-of-pocket spending.

Risk selection into consumer-directed health plans: an analysis of family choices within large employers.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the degree of selection into consumer-directed health plans (CDHPs) versus traditional plans over time, and factors that influence choice and temper risk selection. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Sixteen large employers offering both CDHP and traditional plans during the 2004­2007 period, more than 200,000 families. STUDY DESIGN: We model CDHP choice with logistic regression; predictors include risk scores, in addition to family, choice setting, and plan characteristics. Additional models stratify by account type or single enrollee versus family. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Risk scores, family characteristics, and enrollment decisions are derived from medical claims and enrollment files. Interviews with human resources executives provide additional data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: CDHP risk scores were 74 percent of traditional plan scores in the first year, and this difference declined over time. Employer contributions to accounts and employee premium savings fostered CDHP enrollment and reduced risk selection. Having to make an active choice of plan increased CDHP enrollment but also increased risk selection. Risk selection was greater for singles than families and did not differ between HRA and HSA-based CDHPs. CONCLUSIONS: Risk selection was not severe and it was well managed. Employers have effective methods to encourage CDHP enrollment and temper selection against traditional plans.

More than half of individual health plans offer coverage that falls short of what can be sold through exchanges as of 2014.

The Affordable Care Act creates state-based health exchanges that will begin acting as a market place for health insurance plans and consumers in 2014. This paper compares the financial protection offered by today's group and individual plans with the standards that will apply to insurance sold in state-based exchanges. Some states may apply these standards to all health insurance sold within the state. More than half of Americans who had individual insurance in 2010 were enrolled in plans that would not qualify as providing essential coverage under the rules of the exchanges in 2014. These people were enrolled in plans with an actuarial value below 60 percent, which means that the plans covered less than that proportion of the enrollees' health expenses. Many of today's individual health plans are below the "bronze" level, the lowest level of plan that can be sold through exchanges. In contrast, most group plans in 2010 had an actuarial benefit of 80-89 percent and would qualify as highly rated "gold" plans in the exchanges. To sell to ten million new buyers on the exchanges, insurers will need to redesign benefit packages. Combined with a ban on medical underwriting, the individual insurance market in a post-health reform world will sharply contrast with the market of past decades.

Group insurance: a better deal for most people than individual plans.

This paper compares health plans currently available on the individual market with employer-sponsored plans. Points of comparison include the scope of benefits, cost-sharing provisions, premiums, expected out-of-pocket costs, and actuarial value. We draw from the 2007 KFF/HRET Health Benefits Survey, our own survey of individual-market plans, the MarketScan medical claims database, and a computer simulation of medical claims. We find that in 2007, employment-based plans covered 80 percent of all charges paid by the plan and the member, while individual plans covered 64 percent. For most people, premiums and out-of-pocket costs were more affordable in tax-advantaged employer plans than in individual-market plans. Proposed health reforms would fundamentally alter the plan offerings available to Americans, particularly those offered in the individual market.

Trends in underinsurance and the affordability of employer coverage, 2004-2007.

Based on simulated bill paying, this paper examines trends in comprehensiveness of coverage, out-of-pocket spending for medical services, underinsurance, and the affordability of employer-based insurance from 2004 to 2007. Data are from MarketScan medical claims and an annual survey of employer health benefits. Health plans covered slightly fewer expenses in 2007 than in 2004, but out-of-pocket spending grew more than one-third because of growth in overall health spending. For people at 200 percent of poverty, the percentage spending more than 10 percent of their income out of pocket on premiums plus services increased from 13 percent to 18 percent.

Trends in the golden state: small-group premiums rise sharply while actuarial values for individual coverage plummet.

Using multiple databases, this paper examines recent trends in the affordability and comprehensiveness of small-group and individual health insurance markets in California. Both became less affordable over the study period. In 2006, a single person age 32-52 earning the median income who purchased individual insurance spent on average 16 percent of income on premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses. For individual insurance, the share of medical expenses paid by insurance as opposed to patients declined from 2002 to 2006. In the small-group market, premiums rose more than 50 percent from 2003 to 2006, but the proportion of claims paid by insurers for a standardized population remained constant.