Small Group Market Research Articles

Effects of Cost Sharing on Ophthalmic Care Utilization in the Affordable Care Act Marketplace

ABSTRACT Purpose To determine the distribution and quantity of ophthalmic care consumed on Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans, the demographics of the population utilizing these services, and the relationship between ACA insurance coverage plan tier, cost sharing, and total cost of ophthalmic care consumed. Methods This cross-sectional study analyzed ACA individual and small group market claims data from the Wakely Affordable Care Act (WACA) 2018 dataset, which contains detailed claims, enrollment, and premium data from Edge Servers for 3.9 million individual and small group market lives. We identified all enrollees with ophthalmology-specific billing, procedure, and national drug codes. We then analyzed the claims by plan type and calculated the total cost and out-of-pocket (OOP) cost. Results Among 3.9 million enrollees in the WACA 2018 dataset, 538,169 (13.7%) had claims related to ophthalmology procedures, medications, and/or diagnoses. A total of $203 million was generated in ophthalmology-related claims, with $54 million in general services, $42 million in medications, $20 million in diagnostics and imaging, and $86 million in procedures. Average annual OOP costs were $116 per member, or 30.9% of the total cost, and were lowest for members with platinum plans (16% OOP) and income-driven cost sharing reduction (ICSR) subsidies (17% OOP). Despite stable ocular disease distribution across plan types, beneficiaries with silver ICSR subsidies consumed more total care than any other plan, higher than platinum plan enrollees and almost 1.5× the cost of bronze plan enrollees. Conclusions Ophthalmic care for enrollees on ACA plans generated substantial costs in 2018. Plans with higher OOP cost sharing may result in lower utilization of ophthalmic care.

Trends In Medical And Pharmacy Spending In The Affordable Care Act Markets, 2015-19.

To control rising costs, it is critical for payers, providers, and policy makers to understand trends in health care spending. Using data from both on- and off-exchange Affordable Care Act (ACA)-compliant small-group and individual insurance markets in the United States for the period 2015-19, we analyzed the contributions of trends in utilization, unit price, and service mix to growth in overall health care spending. Overall annual growth trends in health care spending per member per month during that period were 4.0percent in the small-group market and 1.1percent in the individual market. In the small-group market, professional and outpatient facility services contributed the most to spending growth, driven by unit price increases. In the individual market, pharmacy and outpatient facility services accounted for the greatest growth in spending, driven by a combination of unit price increases and changes in the mix of services. Addressing these contributors to growth can help contain costs and premiums and provide more stability to ACA-compliant insurance markets.

Pendampingan Perencanaan Jalur Interpretasi Wisata Trekking di Desa Cisaat, Kecamatan Ciater, Kabupaten Subang, Jawa Barat

Assistance for Planning Interpretation of Trekking Tourism Routes in Cisaat Village, Ciater District, Subang Regency, West Java Cisaat Tourism Village has various attractive potentials to be used as a tourist attraction in the form of its people's natural and cultural potential. Cisaat Tourism Village began to receive public attention since it received appreciation as one of the villages included in the tourism village assistance program from the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy. visits to Cisaat Village experienced a significant increase while the products and tourism activities were still limited. There is a need for tourism efforts in Cisaat Village to meet the increasing demand for tourists from different segments of the tourism market. This Community Service Program is carried out to develop the potential of natural landscapes into trekking tourism products in Cisaat Village. Through workshops and training, this is carried out using situational analysis methods, problems, and problem-solving plans. The development of trekking tourism can be offered as a new alternative to tourism in Cisaat Village to capture individual or small-group market segmentation. Potential resources and natural and cultural landscapes related to the development of trekking tourism are already available. However, the understanding, abilities, and attitudes possessed by human resources are still not sufficient. Assistance activities for making trekking tourism interpretation paths are expected to increase the institutional capacity of tourist villages in products, tourist attractions, and capabilities in organizing trekking tours.

Incumbent regulation and adverse selection: You can keep your health plan, but at what cost?

The 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) instituted incumbent regulation policies in the small group market, where existing health plans could choose to defer compliance with ACA regulations. This created incentives for employers with lower expected healthcare costs and greater uncertainty to not immediately become ACA compliant. We use unique national data with over 300,000 employer-years from 2013 to 2017. Consistent with these incentives, we find that employers with healthier enrollees and those with more turnover were more likely to not immediately comply. This created adverse selection in the ACA-compliant market, increasing its annual healthcare costs by $365 per individual in 2014.

Regional Disparities in Qualified Health Plans' Prior Authorization Requirements for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis in the United States.

With the goal of ending the HIV epidemic in the United States, access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is essential to help curb new HIV infections. There has been differential uptake of PrEP by region, with the South lagging behind other regions. Discriminatory benefit design (benefit design that prevents or delays people with complex or expensive conditions from obtaining appropriate treatment) through prior authorization requirements could be a systemic barrier that contributes to the decreased PrEP uptake in the South. To investigate whether there are regional disparities in prior authorization requirements for combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine for qualified health plans (QHPs) and to assess whether any QHP characteristics explain the disparities. This design was a cross-sectional study of QHPs offered in the 2019 Affordable Care Act Marketplace. The QHPs studied included all Affordable Care Act-compliant individual and small-group market plans in the United States. The primary exposure was the 4 census regions (Northeast, West, Midwest, and South). Additional covariates included other plan characteristics. Prior authorization requirement for combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine at the QHP level. In total, 16 853 QHPs were analyzed (18.2% in the Northeast, 19.5% in the West, 25.0% in the Midwest, and 37.3% in the South). Overall, 18.9% of QHPs required prior authorization for combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine. This percentage varied by region, with 2.3%, 6.2%, 13.3%, and 37.3% of plans requiring prior authorization in the Northeast, West, Midwest, and South, respectively. Compared with QHPs in the Northeast, QHPs in the South were 15.89 (95% CI, 12.57-20.09) times as likely to require prior authorization, whereas the Midwest and West were 5.69 (95% CI, 4.45-7.27) and 2.65 (95% CI, 2.02-3.47) times as likely, respectively. Other plan characteristics did not account for the regional variation. Compared with QHPs in the Northeast, QHPs in the South were almost 16 times as likely to require prior authorization for PrEP, and the reasons for these disparities are unknown. The prior authorization requirement is a possible barrier to PrEP access in the South, which is the region of the United States with the most annual new HIV diagnoses. There is limited regulation of QHPs' prior authorization requirements. Federal- or state-level health policy laws may be necessary to remove this system-level barrier to ending the HIV epidemic in the United States.

Health Insurance Surcharges For Tobacco Use Declined Among Small Employers In 2018

Use of increased premiums for tobacco users in the small-group market fell to 4.1percent in 2018 from 17.8percent in 2017 and 16.2percent in 2016. This decline, possibly due to increased government oversight, occurred without any significant change in the prevalence of tobacco cessation programs. Thus, fewer workers are subject to tobacco surcharges without being provided cessation resources.

A Comparison of Health Risk and Costs Across Private Insurance Markets.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) established new parameters for the individual and small group health insurance markets starting in 2014. We study these 2 reformed markets by comparing health risk and costs to the more mature large employer market. For 2017, claims data for all enrollees in PPACA-compliant individual and small group market plans as well as claims data from a sample of large employer market enrollees. Risk scores and total (unadjusted and risk-adjusted) per-member-per-month (PMPM) allowed charges. Differences across markets in enrollment duration, age, and geographic distribution are addressed. The analysis is descriptive. Compared with large employer market enrollees, health risk was 3% lower among PPACA small group market enrollees and 20% higher among PPACA individual market enrollees. After adjusting for differences in health risk, enrollees in the PPACA individual market had 27% lower PMPM allowed charges than enrollees in the large employer market and enrollees in the PPACA small group market had 12% lower PMPM allowed charges than enrollees in the large employer market. On average, the PPACA individual market enrolls sicker individuals than the 2 group markets. But this does not translate to higher health costs; in fact, enrollees in the PPACA individual market accumulate lower allowed charges than enrollees in the large employer market. Lower-income enrollees particularly accumulate lower allowed charges. Narrower networks and increased enrollee cost-sharing among individual market plans, though they may reduce the value of coverage, likely significantly reduce allowed charges.

Regulatory Pathways to Promote Treatment for Substance Use Disorder or Other Under-Treated Conditions Using Risk Adjustment

This Commentary provides a legal analysis of the extent to which changes proposed by scholars to promote care for substance use disorder or other under-treated illnesses through risk adjustment could be implemented administratively, without legislation, in federal risk adjustment systems: Medicare’s privatized component, Medicare’s pharmaceutical component, and the individual and small group market. As the Commentary explains, federal laws governing risk adjustment provide broad discretion to regulators and can reasonably be interpreted to permit (or in the case of Part C even compel) full and final implementation through the administrative process of almost all of the changes that scholars have proposed.

Health Policy Was Bustin' Out All Over.

The Trump administration refused to defend important provisions of the ACA in court and pursued rules that could open the door to less-regulated insurance options.

Nearly Half Of Small Employers Using Tobacco Surcharges Do Not Provide Tobacco Cessation Wellness Programs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) allowed employer plans in the small-group marketplace to charge tobacco users up to 50percent more for premiums-known as tobacco surcharges-but only if the employer offered a tobacco cessation program and the employee in question failed to participate in it. Using 2016 survey data collected by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust on 278 employers eligible for Small Business Health Options Program, we examined the prevalence of tobacco surcharges and tobacco cessation programs in the small-group market under this policy and found that 16.2percent of small employers used tobacco surcharges. Overall, 47 percent of employers used tobacco surcharges but failed to offer tobacco cessation counseling. Wellness program prevalence was lower in states that allowed tobacco surcharges, and 10.8percent of employers in these states were noncompliant with the ACA by charging tobacco users higher premiums without offering cessation programs. Efforts should be undertaken to improve the monitoring and enforcement of ACA tobacco rating rules.

Regulatory Pathways to Promote Treatment for Substance Use Disorder or Other Under-Treated Conditions Using Risk Adjustment

This commentary provides a legal analysis of the extent to which changes proposed by scholars to promote care for substance use disorder or other under-treated illnesses through risk adjustment could be implemented administratively, without legislation, in federal risk adjustment systems: Medicare's privatized component, Medicare's pharmaceutical component, and the individual and small group market. As the article explains, federal laws governing risk adjustment provide broad discretion to regulators and can reasonably be interpreted to permit (or in the case of Part C even compel) full and final implementation through the administrative process of almost all of the changes that scholars have proposed.

Grandfathered, Grandmothered, And ACA-Compliant Health Plans Have Equivalent Premiums.

Many small employers offer employees health plans that are not fully compliant with Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions such as covering preventive services without cost sharing. These "grandfathered" and "grandmothered" plans accounted for about 65percent of enrollment in the small-group market in 2014. Premium costs for these and ACA-compliant plans were equivalent.

Does Limiting Allowable Rating Variation in the Small Group Health Insurance Market Affect Employer Self-Insurance?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes adjusted community rating in the small group market, which employers can avoid by self-insuring, raising concerns about adverse selection. We evaluate the impact of limiting allowable rating variation on employer self-insurance across industries with varied health risk, using cross-state variation in pre-ACA rating regulations, the nationally-representative 2008-2013 KFF/HRET Employer Health Benefits survey, and a triple-difference regression approach. We find that lower-risk employers subject to laws limiting allowable premium rating variation have a predicted probability of self-insurance that is about 18 percentage points higher than otherwise-similar higher-risk employers, suggesting that these selection concerns are warranted.

An Early Look At SHOP Marketplaces: Low Premiums, Adequate Plan Choice In Many, But Not All, States.

The Affordable Care Act created the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Marketplaces to help small businesses provide health insurance to their employees. To attract the participation of substantial numbers of small employers, SHOP Marketplaces must demonstrate value-added features unavailable in the traditional small-group market. Such features could include lower premiums than those for plans offered outside the Marketplace and more extensive choices of carriers and plans. More choices are necessary for SHOP Marketplaces to offer the "employee choice model," in which employees may choose from many carriers and plans. This study compared the numbers of carriers and plans and premium levels in 2014 for plans offered through SHOP Marketplaces with those of plans offered only outside of the Marketplaces. An average of 4.3 carriers participated in each state's Marketplace, offering a total of forty-seven plans. Premiums for plans offered through SHOP Marketplaces were, on average, 7 percent less than those in the same metal tier offered only outside of the Marketplaces. Lower premiums and the participation of multiple carriers in most states are a source of optimism for future enrollment growth in SHOP Marketplaces. Lack of broker buy-in in many states and burdensome enrollment processes are major impediments to success.

How Has the Affordable Care Act’s Medical Loss Ratio Regulation Affected Insurer Behavior?

Starting in 2011, the Affordable Care Act stipulates that insurers meet the minimum medical loss ratio (MLR) standards or issue rebates. An MLR is the proportion of premium revenues spent on clinical benefits, and must be at least 80% in the individual and small-group markets. Although some insurers have issued rebates, it is unclear whether they also adjusted MLRs and their components in ways to move toward compliance. To investigate early responses of individual and small-group insurers' MLR-related outcomes to the Affordable Care Act provisions. Descriptive and multivariate analyses using 2010-2011 data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and other sources. Outcomes include MLRs, MLR components (claims incurred, premiums earned, quality improvement expenses, and fraud detection/recovery expenses), and administrative expenses. In 2010, only 44.3% of individual market insurers reported MLRs of at least the stipulated level; by 2011, this percentage was 63.2%. Among small-group insurers, 74.9% had 2010 MLRs at or above the stipulated level, with little change in 2011. Individual insurers with 2010 MLRs >10 percentage points below the minimum exhibited the largest increases in MLRs, with changes occurring through increases in claims and indirectly through decreases in administrative expenses. Early responses to MLR regulation seem more pronounced in the individual versus small-group market, with insurers using both direct and indirect strategies for compliance. Because insurers learned of final MLR regulations only in late 2010, early responses may be limited and skewed more toward greater use of rebates than other adjustments.

The HHS-HCC Risk Adjustment Model for Individual and Small Group Markets under the Affordable Care Act

Beginning in 2014, individuals and small businesses are able to purchase private health insurance through competitive Marketplaces. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides for a program of risk adjustment in the individual and small group markets in 2014 as Marketplaces are implemented and new market reforms take effect. The purpose of risk adjustment is to lessen or eliminate the influence of risk selection on the premiums that plans charge. The risk adjustment methodology includes the risk adjustment model and the risk transfer formula. This article is the second of three in this issue of the Review that describe the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) risk adjustment methodology and focuses on the risk adjustment model. In our first companion article, we discuss the key issues and choices in developing the methodology. In this article, we present the risk adjustment model, which is named the HHS-Hierarchical Condition Categories (HHS-HCC) risk adjustment model. We first summarize the HHS-HCC diagnostic classification, which is the key element of the risk adjustment model. Then the data and methods, results, and evaluation of the risk adjustment model are presented. Fifteen separate models are developed. For each age group (adult, child, and infant), a model is developed for each cost sharing level (platinum, gold, silver, and bronze metal levels, as well as catastrophic plans). Evaluation of the risk adjustment models shows good predictive accuracy, both for individuals and for groups. Lastly, this article provides examples of how the model output is used to calculate risk scores, which are an input into the risk transfer formula. Our third companion paper describes the risk transfer formula.

Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional

One of the most neglected features in the debate over HR-SA 3590, the Reid Bill, is the level of systematic coercion that it places on health insurance issuers, especially in the individual and small group market. This paper concludes that the combined impact of these restrictions severely compromises the likelihood that these health insurers can remain in business under legislation that eliminates virtually all underwriting discretion in the selection of covered parties and the rates that they charge, imposes minimum restrictions on the services that they supply, and imposes heavy global mandates on the administrative costs that they must bear. This extensive level of regulation rests on the flawed premise that price controls can achieve efficiencies that are not otherwise attainable in markets. The full weight of the Reid Bill is tantamount to treating these insurers as public utilities, who should, but do not receive anything close to, the constitutionally mandated, risk-adjusted rate of return.

Saving Small Employer Health Insurance

Health care reform devotes substantial attention to resuscitating the small group health insurance markets that serve employers with fewer than fifty full time employees. Unfortunately, a number of interweaving provisions embedded within the Affordable Care Act create strong incentives that, starting in 2014, will tend to undermine this market and, in the process, increase the fiscal cost of reform. First, small employers with predominantly low-income employees will tend to opt out of the small group market. Second, small employers with mixed-income employees will have strong incentives to offer coverage that is neither technically “affordable” or of “minimum value” in order to preserve the availability of premium and cost-sharing subsidies on the individual market for their low-income employees. Third, small employers with unusually low-risk employees will have strong incentives to self-insure any group plan they do offer in order to avoid cross-subsidizing higher-risk groups. Analyzing these risks collectively, this Article offers a number of recommendations for saving the small group market. For instance, it argues that the SHOP exchanges that are intended to organize the small group market in 2014 must strategically target the weaknesses of self-insurance by offering simple and risk-free coverage options that facilitate employee choice. They must also market this coverage aggressively in light of insurance brokers’ likely financial incentives to push self-insurance on small employers. Additionally, state and federal law makers should explore various possibilities for making small employers both more likely to offer group coverage and, if they do offer group coverage, to do so through SHOP exchanges rather than self-insured plans. Possibilities explored by this Article include amending the terms of the premium and small business tax credits, regulating stop-loss insurance, and imposing various restrictions or penalties that are aimed at preventing churning between the self-insured and small group markets.

How Choices In Exchange Design For States Could Affect Insurance Premiums And Levels Of Coverage

The Affordable Care Act gives states the option to create health insurance exchanges from which individuals and small employers can purchase health insurance. States have considerable flexibility in how they design and implement these exchanges. We analyze several key design options being considered, using the Urban Institute's Health Insurance Policy Simulation Model: creating separate versus merged small-group and nongroup markets, eliminating age rating in these markets, removing the small-employer credit, and setting the maximum number of employees for firms in the small-group market at 50 versus 100 workers. Among our findings are that merging the small-group and nongroup markets would result in 1.7 million more people nationwide participating in the exchanges and, because of greater affordability of nongroup coverage, approximately 1.0 million more people being insured than if the risk pools were not merged. The various options generate relatively small differences in overall coverage and cost, although some, such as reducing age rating bands, would result in higher costs for some people while lowering costs for others. These cost effects would be most apparent among people who purchase coverage without federal subsidies. On the whole, we conclude that states can make these design choices based on local support and preferences without dramatic repercussions for overall coverage and cost outcomes.

How Small-Business Health Exchanges Can Offer Value To Their Future Customers—And Why They Must

The success of the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP)-health insurance exchanges targeted at the small-group market and opening for business in January 2014-will depend in large part on persuading small employers and qualified health plans to participate. The most important objective will be offering employers lower-cost health plans than they have now. Other critical objectives will be offering small firms administrative efficiencies and access to choices among high-value plans that are not offered elsewhere. This article frames the challenges that exchanges will encounter in meeting these objectives. In particular, it discusses the advisability of small-business exchanges' offering an "employee choice" model (which the article describes in detail); of combining the small-business and individual exchanges to broaden product offerings and gain operational efficiencies; and of encouraging low-cost plans to enter the exchange market, perhaps by enabling Medicaid managed care plans to offer comparable commercial products, and in turn affording health plans access to a uniquely motivated market of small firms and their workers who want affordable coverage.