Many Individual Health Plans Are Below ACA Standards

 

 

 

A new study finds that 51 percent of Americans with individual health insurance will improve their coverage in 2014 through the health exchanges.

 

 

Health Affairs

 

 

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2012/05/22/hlthaff.2011.1082

 

 

More Than Half Of Individual Health Plans Offer Coverage That Falls Short Of What Can Be Sold Through Exchanges As Of 2014

  1. 1.       Jon R. Gabel1,*,
  2. 2.       Ryan Lore2,
  3. 3.       Roland D. McDevitt3,
  4. 4.       Jeremy D. Pickreign4,
  5. 5.       Heidi Whitmore5,
  6. 6.       Michael Slover6 and
  7. 7.       Ethan Levy-Forsythe7

+ Author Affiliations

  1. 1.        1Jon R. Gabel (Gabel-Jon@norc.org) is a senior fellow in the Health Care Research Department at NORC at the University of Chicago, in Bethesda, Maryland.
  2. 2.        2Ryan Lore is a health care research associate at Towers Watson, in Arlington, Virginia.
  3. 3.        3Roland D. McDevitt is director of health care research at Towers Watson.
  4. 4.        4Jeremy D. Pickreign is a senior research scientist in the Health Care Research Department at NORC at the University of Chicago.
  5. 5.        5Heidi Whitmore is a senior research scientist in the Health Care Research Department at NORC at the University of Chicago.
  6. 6.        6Michael Slover is a research associate at Towers Watson.
  7. 7.        7Ethan Levy-Forsythe is a research analyst in the Health Care Research Department at NORC at the University of Chicago.
  8. *Corresponding author

Abstract

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.

 

 

FULL  TEXT

 

 

Aspiring to achieve near-universal coverage, the Affordable Care Act of 2010 ranks with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the legislation creating Social Security and Medicare and as one of the most transformative, and controversial, laws of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Among its many objectives, the health reform law sought to improve the efficiency of the individual and small-group health insurance markets through the establishment of state-based insurance exchanges.

Starting in 2014 exchanges will allow individuals and employers of fewer than a hundred employees (or fewer than fifty employees if states choose a lower limit) to purchase coverage in Internet-based marketplaces. The exchanges will provide a choice of many plans and detailed information about them. The Affordable Care Act prohibits the use of preexisting conditions to deny health insurance to people and forbids insurers to set premiums based on a person’s health status and medical history. People who buy coverage through exchanges and have household incomes of 133–400 percent of the federal poverty level will receive subsidies from the federal government.

The Affordable Care Act employs the technical term actuarial value, which is largely used by actuaries, benefit consultants, and economists. By estimating the percentage of the medical bill that a plan will pay for a standardized population,1 actuarial value measures the financial protection that the plan offers. If a plan has an actuarial value of 75 percent, the insurer pays three-fourths of the medical bills for that population, and the members collectively pay one-fourth out of pocket in deductibles, copayments, and other cost sharing. The Affordable Care Act sets up four tiers of health plans that people will be able to purchase through the exchanges, with each tier defined by its actuarial value. The value of the platinum tier is 90 percent or greater; gold, 80–89 percent; silver, 70–79 percent; and bronze 60–69 percent.

This paper addresses two research questions: First, what was the financial protection offered by plans in 2010 in the individual and small- and large-group markets? Second, do these plans from 2010 meet the 2014 standards that will apply to qualified health plans offered through state exchanges?

Our findings were based on simulated bill paying from a national sample of employer-based plans and a five-state sample of individual plans. Our primary finding was that most group plans on the market today fall into the “gold” range, and more than half of the enrollees in individual plans were in plans below the Affordable Care Act’s 60 percent minimum threshold of actuarial value.

 

Study Data And Methods

Data

We used three major databases in this study. For employer-based health insurance, we analyzed data from the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Educational Trust 2010 Employer Health Benefit Survey.2 In 2010 the survey included 2,046 randomly chosen public and private employers employing three or more workers. It collected extensive information about enrollment in the largest health maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, point-of-service plan, and high-deductible plan with a savings option. It also collected information about benefits and cost sharing in these plans.

Data on plans in the individual market in 2010 constituted the second major database. Five of ten states sampled in a previous study were randomly selected, with the probability of selection based on a three-year average of the number of individually insured people in the state.3

In the earlier study, we drew a stratified random sample from four regions, examining whether the state had restrictions on medical underwriting in the individual market—that is, the use of a person’s health or medical information in evaluating his or her application for insurance and setting the premium price.4 The probability of selection was based on the three-year average of individually insured people in the state. The five sampled states for this study were California, Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, and Michigan. For the four largest carriers in each state, we copied short plan descriptions from the website eHealthInsurance.5 From the short plan descriptions, we downloaded detailed data about covered benefits and patient cost sharing.

We collected data on enrollment in different individual insurance products through interviews with marketing managers of the carriers in each state. Products were defined by the type of plan—health maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, point-of-service plan, and high-deductible plan with a savings option—and deductible levels. This enrollment information was used to construct sample weights, as well as the probability of the state selection in the sample.

The Thomson Reuters MarketScan 2008 medical claims database6 provided information on medical claims actually submitted for payment on behalf of fifteen million enrollees in employer-sponsored plans. We sampled a standardized population, inflated these charges to 2010, and used them as a basis for simulating payment of claims.

An alternative database sometimes used for actuarial analysis is the household file from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey,7 conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This panel survey provides highly useful data collected through household interviews. However, it appears to understate charges and utilization by approximately 10 percent. High-cost families are particularly underrepresented.8 In contrast, there is no attrition for very high users of health care services in MarketScan and other medical claims databases.

 

Estimating Plan Generosity

We simulated health plan and out-of-pocket spending for plans in the group and individual markets using the standardized population sampled from MarketScan. For each person in our claims database, we calculated the absolute payments by the plan and the enrollee.

To facilitate comparison with the Affordable Care Act’s standards for 2014, we included all charges for the standardized population in calculating actuarial values, regardless of whether a given plan covered the full range of services for which there were charges. Summing estimates for individuals yielded an estimate for each plan in our two samples (group and individual plans). In the analysis, we calculated actuarial values and out-of-pocket expenses according to the percentile of spending.

An alternative method for estimating plan generosity is illustrated by Jessica Banthin and her colleagues.9 Using data from the household component of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey,5 Banthin and coauthors added the out-of-pocket expenses for premiums and medical services for each household and then divided the sum by disposable household income. Households that spent more than 10 percent of disposable income on medical expenses were deemed households with a high burden of expenses.

Although this method is more intuitive than simulated bill paying, our simulation approach had the advantage of examining the effect of different features of health plans, such as deductibles, copayments, and limits on plan payments and out-of-pocket payments. Simulated bill paying also facilitates comparisons with the actuarial value standards that will apply in state exchanges in 2014.

 

Essential Benefits

The Affordable Care Act lists ten broad categories that must be included in essential health benefits and indicates that the intent of the law is to include services that are in a typical employer plan. The categories are as follows: ambulatory services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn services; mental health and substance use disorder treatments, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services (those that provide medically necessary therapies to children with developmental disabilities and similar conditions) and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services, including chronic disease management; and pediatric services including vision and oral care.10

From multiple surveys, analysts have a good understanding of which services employers currently cover, and the MarketScan medical claims database includes charges for these services. In this paper we assumed that all charges that appeared for the standardized population that we sampled from the MarketScan database were covered under the definition of essential health benefits.11

In the individual market, short plan descriptions identified what services were not covered among the Affordable Care Act’s ten broad categories. For plans that did not cover a category, such as maternity and newborn services, we classified all related charges for that plan as out-of-pocket expenses. Behavioral health and maternity benefits were two areas commonly excluded or subject to internal limits in the individual market.

 

Limits On Out-Of-Pocket Expenses

The Affordable Care Act requires that all health plans have a cap on annual out-of-pocket expenses that is no higher than the out-of-pocket limit that applies for high-deductible plans to qualify for a health savings account. Study plan data are from calendar year 2010, and the applicable health savings account out-of-pocket limits for that year were $5,950 for an individual and $11,900 for a family. Low-income families and individuals who buy coverage through an exchange will have lower caps. For example, low-income households earning 150–200 percent of the federal poverty level would have annual out-of-pocket caps of approximately $2,000 for an individual and $4,000 for a family, one-third of the standard caps.12 Such households would receive coverage with a plan that has an actuarial value of at least 87 percent.

 

Weights And Statistical Testing

The standardized population included people enrolled in single coverage and family coverage with appropriate weighting to reflect the ratio of people with single and family coverage. Below we present statistics on households with coverage in the group and individual markets. Households can contain single or multiple persons. Multiple-person households have a policyholder and dependents. We use the term family as short for the technical term insurance family.

Employee weights were calculated as the product of the number of employees in the plan and the employer weight, which was the inverse of the probability that the firm appeared in the sample. In the individual market, overall weights were the product of plan or insurance product enrollment and the inverse of the probability that a state was selected for the study.

 

Comparisons To Prior Work

The methods used in this paper to calculate actuarial value differed from those in our previous work, and this change precludes historical comparisons.13,14 First, our prior studies assumed that some care was delivered out of network. This study assumed that all care was delivered in network. When beneficiaries use out-of-network providers such as in preferred provider organization plans, they incur much larger out-of-pocket expenses. Yet families greatly value having more choice of providers. Because we did not wish to downgrade the value of plans providing out-of-network coverage, we assumed that all care was provided in network.

Second, our prior studies used the individual as the unit of observation. In this study we included both families and single-person households.

Third, more extensive information on plan cost sharing and covered benefits was available for the current study. In the individual market, a major change from prior work was that actuarial values in this study reflected the absence of maternity benefits. In the previous study, maternity benefits were treated as other medical and surgical benefits, so even if the plan did not cover maternity or mental health benefits, the model treated such benefits as covered. For this article, if a plan does not cover maternity care, all expenses for such care are treated as uncovered services, and all medical expenses are borne by the beneficiary.

Fourth, in the individual insurance market the five-state sample in this study—as opposed to the ten-state sample in an earlier study2—did not include Massachusetts. The Massachusetts individual market is dominated by high-actuarial-value health maintenance organizations and thus differs greatly from the market in other states.3

 

Limitations

We note a few limitations of this study. First, actual out-of-pocket spending is likely to be higher than our estimates, particularly for people who are extensive users of the health care system, use uncovered services, and obtain some out-of-network care. We did not separately estimate out-of-network spending because, as noted above, we wanted to avoid penalizing plans with such benefits.

Second, our sample for the individual market was only five states. However, these states accounted for approximately 31 percent of enrollment in the US individual insurance market.

Third, our methods for calculating actuarial value and out-of-pocket expenses have changed somewhat from previous studies, which precludes trend analysis.

Fourth, the analysis in this study did not take preexisting conditions into account.

 

Study Results

Actuarial Value and Out-of-Pocket Expenses

Group Insurance:

The average actuarial value for a group health insurance plan in 2010 was 83 percent (Exhibit 1). As patients incurred higher medical expenses, their insurance paid a higher percentage of the cost. Thus, for families that incurred medical expenses that placed them in the top 1 percent of the population, plans paid 96 percent of allowed charges. For the bottom 50 percent of spenders, insurance paid only 64 percent of the charges.

Exhibit 1

Actuarial Value And Out-Of-Pocket Spending In Group Insurance Plans, By Benefit Tier, 2010

                                    Tier

Characteristic Tin Bronze Silver Gold Platinum All tiers
Number of employees enrolled (millions) 0.4 4.4 20.5 29.8 17.3 72.3
Percent of employees enrolled 0.5 6.1 28.3 41.2 23.9 100.0
Average actuarial value per family
All families 59 67 76 85 93 83
Top 1% 91 94 94 96 98 96
Top 10% 78 83 87 92 96 91
Top 25% 70 77 83 89 95 88
Top 50% 63 71 79 87 94 85
Bottom 50% 25 31 47 68 86 64
Average out-of-pocket spending per family
All families $4,253 $3,427 $2,523 $1,565 $731 $1,765
Top 1% 15,346a 10,987 10,455 7,048 3,763 7,513
Top 10% 10,998 8,495 6,533 4,217 2,056 4,654
Top 25% 8,976 6,879 5,092 3,249 1,553 3,618
Top 50% 6,919 5,397 3,936 2,459 1,172 2,773
Bottom 50% 1,586 1,456 1,109 670 289 756
Deductibles
Percent of families with nonzero deductible 94 99 94 80 14 69
Average single-person deductibleb $5,376 $2,291 $1,209 $454 $224 $751

SOURCE Authors’ calculations based on data from the Kaiser/HRET annual employer benefit survey and Thomson Reuters’ MarketScan (Notes 2 and 6 in text). NOTES Actuarial values for tin, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum tiers are given in the text. Family includes single-person household. Percentages of families are by level of total health care spending. Out-of-pocket spending is determined before applying caps from the Affordable Care Act.

a Out-of-pocket spending estimates would exceed the figure for families.

b Excluding plans with zero deductibles.

 

 

For comparison purposes, we created a fifth category, plans of “tin” actuarial value, that captured those plans whose actuarial values were less than 60 percent (Exhibit 1). The range in actuarial values narrowed as patients incurred increased medical expenses, mainly because of required design features of insurance spelled out by the Affordable Care Act, such as annual and lifetime caps on consumers’ out-of-pocket spending. For the top 1 percent of medical spenders, tin plans paid 91 percent of the bill, whereas platinum plans paid 98 percent. In contrast, for the bottom 50 percent of spenders, tin plans paid only 25 percent of the bill, while platinum plans paid 86 percent.

For an average family, annual out-of-pocket expenses were $1,765 (Exhibit 1). For the top 1 percent of spenders, the average out-of-pocket expense was $7,513, ranging from $15,346 for tin plans to $3,763 for platinum plans.

Deductibles strongly influenced actuarial values and out-of-pocket expenses (Exhibit 1). For example, only 14 percent of employees enrolled in platinum plans had deductibles, compared to 99 percent of enrollees in bronze plans. For plans with deductibles, the average deductible for a single person was $5,376 in tin plans and $224 in platinum plans.

 

Individual Insurance:

The average actuarial value for an individual plan was 60 percent (Exhibit 2)—more than twenty percentage points less than that for group insurance (Exhibit 1). For families incurring the highest 1 percent of medical expenses, individual insurance covered 87 percent of the bill, compared to 33 percent for families in the lowest half of spending. There were no platinum plans in our sample of individual plans, and the majority of enrollees were in a tin plan.

 

Exhibit 2

Actuarial Value And Out-Of-Pocket Spending In Individual-Market Plans In Selected States, By Benefit Tier, 2010

  Tier  
Characteristic Tin Bronze Silver Gold All tiers
Percent of beneficiaries 51% 33% 14% 2% 100%
Average actuarial value per family
All families 52 64 74 85 60%
Top 1% 84 88 93 96 87
Top 10% 69 79 87 91 75
Top 25% 61 72 82 89 68
Top 50% 55 67 78 87 63
Bottom 50% 27 38 43 73 33
Average out-of-pocket spending per family
All families $4,905 $3,670 $2,666 $1,490 $4,127
Top 1% 27,435a 20,113a 11,804 6,383 22,478a
Top 10% 15,476a 10,750 6,856 4,330 12,523a
Top 25% 11,562 8,190 5,427 3,289 9,452
Top 50% 8,265 6,034 4,132 2,409 6,852
Bottom 50% 1,544 1,305 1,200 571 1,401
Deductibles
Percent of families with nonzero deductible 99 96 98 27 96
Average single-person deductibleb $3,881 $2,157 $1,054 $389 $2,858

SOURCE Authors’ calculations based on survey of individual health plan provisions and Thomson Reuters’ MarketScan database (Note 6 in text). NOTES Actuarial values for tin, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum tiers are given in the text. There were no platinum plans in our sample of individual plans. Family includes single-person household. Percentages of families are by level of total health care spending. Out-of-pocket spending is determined before applying caps from the Affordable Care Act.

a Out-of-pocket spending estimates would exceed the figure for families.

b Excluding plans with zero deductibles.

 

Average out-of-pocket spending per family was $4,127 (Exhibit 2). Out-of-pocket spending for the top 1 percent of spenders ranged from $27,435 for tin plans to $6,383 for gold plans. For families in the bottom half of spending, the figures were $1,544 and $571, respectively. Ninety-six percent of families faced a deductible, which averaged $2,858 for single-person coverage.

 

Distribution Of Current Plans

Group Insurance:

In 2010 more than 60 percent of people enrolled in group plans were in either the gold or the platinum tier (Exhibit 3). About 28 percent were in the silver tier, and 6 percent were in the bronze tier. Fewer than 1 percent of enrollees were in tin plans, which would not qualify for the state insurance exchanges.

 

 

Exhibit 3

Percentage Of Group Policies, By Actuarial Value And Plan Type, 2010

SOURCE Authors’ calculations based on data from the Kaiser/HRET annual employer benefit survey and Thomson Reuters’ MarketScan (Notes 2 and 6 in text). NOTES Actuarial values for tin, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum tiers are given in the text. Account contributions by employers under high-deductible plans with savings options are treated as out-of-pocket expenses. HDHP-SO is high-deductible health plan with a savings option. PPO is preferred provider option. POS is point-of-service plan. HMO is health maintenance organization.

Health maintenance organization plans were disproportionately concentrated in the platinum tier (Exhibit 4). Although enrollment in these plans accounted for 20 percent of the employer-based insurance market, 45 percent of platinum enrollment was this category. Preferred provider organization plans were concentrated in the gold tier, and high-deductible health plans with savings options were more common in the bronze tier.

 

Exhibit 4

Percentage Of Enrollment, By Tier And Type Of Plan, Group And Individual Insurance, 2010

  Tier  
Plan type Tin Bronze Silver Gold Platinum All tiers
Group insurance
HMO 0 3 7 16 45 20
POS 0 5 12 6 9 8
PPO 38 31 55 75 46 59
HDHP-SO without employer account contribution 3 16 3 1 0 2
HDHP-SO with employer account contributiona 59 45 23 3 0 11
Individual insurance
HMO 0 1 11 73 0 3
POS 9 6 15 0 0 9
PPO 76 78 66 27 0 74
HDHP-SO 15 15 8 0 0 14

SOURCE Authors’ calculations based on Note 2 in text. NOTES Actuarial values for tin, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum tiers are given in the text. HMO is health maintenance organization. POS is point-ofservice plan. PPO is preferred provider option. HDHP-SO is high-deductible health plan with a savings account option.

a The employer’s account contribution is counted as out-of-pocket expense.

 

Individual Insurance:

Fifty-one percent of the enrollment in individual insurance plans was in tin plans (Exhibits 2 and 5). Another one-third of individual enrollment was in bronze plans, 14 percent in silver plans, and 2 percent in gold plans. As noted above, our sample of individual plans included no platinum plans.

 

 

Exhibit 5

Percentage Of Individual Policies, By Actuarial Value And Plan Type, 2010

SOURCE Authors’ calculations based on data from the Kaiser/HRET annual employer benefit survey and Thomson Reuters’ MarketScan (Notes 2 and 6 in text). NOTES Actuarial values for tin, bronze, silver, gold, and platinum tiers are given in the text. Account contributions by employers under high-deductible plans with savings options are treated as out-of-pocket expenses. HDHP-SO is high-deductible health plan with a savings option. PPO is preferred provider option. POS is point-of-service plan. HMO is health maintenance organization.

Preferred provider organizations held a predominant market share in the individual market (74 percent), with health maintenance organization plans accounting for only 3 percent (Exhibit 4). Yet nearly three-fourths of enrollment in gold plans was in health maintenance organizations.

Discussion

Using simulated claim payments, we found that the average actuarial value of group plans in 2010 was 83 percent, and the average for individual plans was 60 percent. For an average family, annual out-of-pocket expenses were $1,765 with group coverage, compared to $4,127 with individual coverage. For people in poor health who incurred high medical expenses, the differences between the group and individual markets were even more dramatic.

Our findings have notable policy implications. First, the majority of Americans with individual insurance coverage today are enrolled in a plan whose actuarial value is too low to qualify for a state-based exchange. Insurance reforms that went into effect September 23, 2010, raised the financial protection offered by exchange plans. For example, lifetime maximum benefits were eliminated, effective preventive services must now be offered without cost sharing, and annual limits on insurance coverage were removed. But to qualify for exchanges, insurers will need to lower the average deductible level for individual tin plans, which today average nearly $3,900 for a single person.

Second, about two-thirds of today’s employees are enrolled in a gold or platinum plan. Families with coverage through the exchanges are likely to have less financial protection than employees with employer-based coverage enjoy today. Employers choosing to buy insurance coverage for their employees through the small-employer exchange, which could eventually include employers with more than a hundred workers, will probably obtain less extensive coverage if they opt to buy a plan in the silver tier than if they now offer a plan typical of those provided in the employer-based market today.

Third, very sick patients—those in the top 1 percent of medical spending—incur sizable out-of-pocket expenses regardless of coverage. For example, these top spenders face out-of-pocket expenses of nearly $3,800 in a group platinum plan. But there are substantial differences in out-of-pocket spending between plans with high actuarial value and plans with low value. A family in the top 1 percent of medical spenders with tin coverage in the individual market incurs annual out-of-pocket expenses of more than $27,000.

Despite the limitations of the study, we are confident that our major conclusions hold. Individual insurance coverage does not meet exchange standards for the majority of covered lives. Group insurance coverage is likely to have higher actuarial value on average than plans offered by exchanges. Individual insurers will need to alter benefit designs to qualify for exchanges. Together with a ban on medical underwriting, the individual market of the future will sharply contrast with the market of the past decades.

 

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Commonwealth Fund for its financial support, which made this work possible. The authors also thank Sara Collins at the Commonwealth Fund for her helpful comments throughout the course of the project. [Published online May 23, 2012.]

ABOUT THE AUTHORS: JON R. GABEL, RYAN LORE, ROLAND D. MCDEVITT, JEREMY D. PICKREIGN, HEIDI WHITMORE, MICHAEL SLOVER & ETHAN LEVY-FORSYTHE

In this month’s Health Affairs, Jon Gabel and coauthors report on their study of the actuarial value of individual health insurance plans in today’s market—and how those compare to what will be required of products sold through exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. In essence, most Americans who have individual health insurance today have less generous coverage than the “bronze” plans, with 60 percent actuarial value, that will have to be sold on exchanges. In contrast, most group health insurance plans now in effect would qualify as highly rated “gold” plans in the exchanges, with an actuarial value of 80–89 percent.

Gabel is a senior fellow at the Health Care Research Department, NORC at the University of Chicago. He is an expert on private health insurance and manages projects on health reform, mental health, and the military benefits program TRICARE. From 1986 to 2008 Gabel was principal investigator of the annual Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Educational Trust Employer Health Benefits Annual Survey and its predecessor surveys. Gabel received a master’s degree in economics from Arizona State University.

Ryan Lore is a health care research associate at Towers Watson. Lore’s main research interests include modeling of health plan expense, analysis of medical claims and benefit surveys, and insurance reform initiatives. He has collaborated with NORC on several projects regarding actuarial value and health plan members’ out-of-pocket expenses. Lore has a master’s degree in public policy from Georgetown University.

Roland McDevitt is director of health care research at Towers Watson. He has developed medical claims databases and microsimulation models to estimate actuarial value and member out-of-pocket expenses for health plans. McDevitt holds a doctorate in political science and public policy analysis from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Jeremy Pickreign is a senior research scientist at the Health Care Research Department, NORC at the University of Chicago. His areas of research include employer, retiree, and military health benefits and small-group and individual insurance markets. Pickreign has been the lead statistician on several data collection efforts, including the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Educational Trust Employer Health Benefits Annual Survey. He has a master’s degree in biometry and statistics from the University at Albany, State University of New York.

Heidi Whitmore is a senior research scientist at the Health Care Research Department, NORC at the University of Chicago. Whitmore has experience in private health insurance and establishment surveys, with work on questionnaire design and administration and research focused on employer health benefits, retiree health benefits, and small-group and individual insurance markets. Whitmore is project manager for several health insurance–related studies for clients, including the Kaiser Family Foundation and Commonwealth Fund. She received a master’s degree in public policy from Georgetown University.

Michael Slover is a research associate at Towers Watson. He has provided programming and analytical support in multiple areas of health care research, including employer health benefits as well as group and individual-market health plans. He has experience working with multiple data sources, including Thompson Reuters’ MarketScan and the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Slover has a master’s degree in economics from North Carolina State University.

Ethan Levy-Forsythe is a research analyst at the Health Care Research Department, NORC at the University of Chicago. He specializes in quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis, and he is working on projects funded by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Health Resources and Services Administration, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, among others. Levy-Forsythe received a bachelor’s degree in sociology from the University of Maryland, College Park.

 

NOTES

  1. The term standardized population refers to a common electronic medical claims database used for simulated bill paying. A common database is necessary so that differences in actuarial value will reflect differences in the benefit package rather than the health of the covered populations. The word standardized, rather than standard, is commonly used to avoid the implication that there is a specific database all analysts must use.
    1. Claxton G,
    2. DiJulio B,
    3. Finder B,
    4. Lundy J,
    5. McHugh M,
    6. Osei-Anto A,
    7. et al.

Employer health benefits: 2010 annual survey [Internet]. Menlo Park (CA): Kaiser Family Foundation; 2010 [cited 2012 Apr 18]. Available from: http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2010/8085.pdf

    1. Whitmore H,
    2. Gabel J,
    3. Pickreign J,
    4. McDevitt R

. The individual insurance market: low premiums and low benefits. Med Care Res Rev. 2011;68(5):594–606.

Abstract/FREE Full Text

  1. In the prior study, we stratified states based on medical writing restrictions because we believed that restrictions were an effective metric for measuring stringency of regulation. States with more stringent regulation were more likely to have higher premiums as a result of a sicker population and more mandated benefits and consumer protections.

eHealthInsurance [home page on the Internet]. Mountain View (CA): eHealth Inc.; [cited 2012 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Alliance?allid=Goo13330&sid=NATIONAL+2

Thomson Reuters. MarketScan research databases [Internet]. New York (NY): Thomson Reuters; [cited 2012 Apr 18]. Available from: http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/healthcare/healthcare_products/a-z/marketscan_research_analytics/

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey [home page on Internet]. Rockville (MD): AHRQ; [cited 2012 Apr 18]. Available from: http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/

    1. Aizcorbe A,
    2. Liebman E,
    3. Pack S,
    4. Cutler DM,
    5. Chernew ME,
    6. Rosen A

. Measuring health care costs of individuals with employer-sponsored health insurance in the U.S.: a comparison of survey and claims data [Internet]. Washington (DC): Bureau of Economic Analysis; [cited 2012 Apr 18]. Available from: http://www.bea.gov/papers/pdf/measuring_health_care_costs_of_individuals_aizcorbe.pdf

    1. Banthin JS,
    2. Cunningham P,
    3. Bernard DM

. Financial burden of health care, 2001–2004. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(1):188–95.

Abstract/FREE Full Text

10.

UnitedHealthcare. Timeline of provisions: essential health benefits [Internet]. Minnetonka (MN): UnitedHealthcare; [cited 2012 Apr 18]. Available from: http://www.uhc.com/united_for_reform_resource_center/health_reform_provisions/essential_health_benefits.htm

11.

  1. Yong PL,
  2. Bertko J,
  3. Kronick R

A recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services found that excluding services such as rehabilitative services, durable medical equipment, acupuncture and chiropractic services, and home health services in the essential benefit package only reduced expenses by 5 percent. These charges are included in our analysis to the extent that they were covered by employers in our 2008 database, but forthcoming regulations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will redefine the extent to which some of these smaller categories are included. Yong PL, Bertko J, Kronick R. Actuarial value and employer-sponsored insurance [Internet]. Washington (DC): Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; 2011 Nov [cited 2012 Apr 18]. (ASPE Research Brief). Available from: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2011/AV-ESI/rb.pdf

12.

  1. Levitt L,
  2. Claxton G,
  3. Pollitz K

. Private insurance benefits and cost-sharing under the ACA [Internet]. Menlo Park (CA): Kaiser Family Foundation; 2012 Feb 28 [cited 2012 Apr 18]. (Notes on Health Insurance and Reform). Available from: http://healthreform.kff.org/notes-on-health-insurance-and-reform/2012/february/private-insurance-benefits-and-cost-sharing-under-the-aca.aspx

13.

  1. McDevitt R,
  2. Gabel J,
  3. Lore R,
  4. Pickreign J,
  5. Whitmore H,
  6. Brust T

. Group insurance: a better deal for most people than individual plans. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(1):156–64.

Abstract/FREE Full Text

14.

  1. Gabel JR,
  2. McDevitt R,
  3. Lore R,
  4. Pickreign J,
  5. Whitmore H,
  6. Ding T

. Trends in underinsurance and the affordability of employer coverage, 2004–2007. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28(4):w595–606. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.4.w595.

Abstract/FREE Full Text