How might immunization rates change if cost sharing is eliminated?

OBJECTIVES: There is a debate regarding the effect of cost sharing on immunization, particularly as the Affordable Care Act will eliminate cost sharing for recommended vaccines. This study estimates changes in immunization rates and spending associated with extending first-dollar coverage to privately insured children for four childhood vaccines. METHODS: We used the 2008 National Immunization Survey and peer-reviewed literature to generate estimates of immunization status for each vaccine by age group and insurance type. We used the Truven Health Analytics 2006 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database of line-item medical claims to estimate changes in immunization rates that would result from eliminating cost sharing, and we used the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Educational Trust Employer Health Benefits Survey to determine the prevalence of coverage for patients with first-dollar coverage, patients who face office visit cost sharing, and patients who face cost sharing for all vaccine cost components. We assumed that once cost sharing is removed, coverage rates in plans that impose cost sharing will rise to the level of plans that do not. RESULTS: We estimate that immunization rates would increase modestly and result in additional direct spending of $26.0 million to insurers/employers. Further, these payers would have an additional $11.0 million in spending associated with eliminating cost sharing for children already receiving immunizations. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of eliminating cost sharing for vaccines vary by vaccine. Overall, immunization rates will rise modestly given high insurance coverage for vaccinations, and these increases would be more substantial for those currently facing cost sharing. However, in addition to the removal of cost sharing for immunizations, these findings suggest other strategies to consider to further increase immunization rates.

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.

Health benefits in 2010: premiums rise modestly, workers pay more toward coverage.

Our annual analysis of health benefits contains findings from interviews of 2,046 public and private employers surveyed during January-May 2010. Average annual premiums in 2010 were $5,049 for single coverage and $13,770 for family coverage--up 5 percent and 3 percent from 2009, respectively. Workers paid more toward premiums in 2010, and more workers are in consumer-directed plans and plans with high deductibles than in 2009. Thirty percent of firms reported that they reduced the scope of benefits or increased cost sharing because of the recession. Surprisingly, the percentage of firms offering health benefits in 2010 increased to 69 percent, up from 60 percent in 2009. The change was largely driven by a thirteen-percentage-point increase in the number of firms with three to nine workers that offered benefits (up from 46 percent in 2009 to 59 percent in 2010). The reason for this increase is unclear.

Substance abuse benefits: still limited after all these years.

Using data from a special supplement to the 2006 Kaiser/HRET Employer Health Benefits Survey, this study examines the state of employer-sponsored insurance substance abuse benefits in 2006 and how benefits compare to coverage for medical-surgical services. In 2006, 88 percent of insured workers had some coverage for substance abuse services. Current substance abuse benefits, however, do not provide the same protection afforded under medical-surgical benefits. Instead, substance abuse benefits are characterized by higher cost sharing and annual limits and lifetime limits on inpatient and outpatient care. These limits generally do not exist for other medical conditions and have increased since 1990.

Health benefits offer rates: is there a nonresponse bias?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a nonresponse bias exists in the offer rate for health benefits in firms with fewer than 50 workers and to present a simple adjustment to correct for observed bias. DATA SOURCES: The 2003 Employer Health Benefits Survey (EHBS) conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, and a follow-up survey of nonrespondents to the 2003 EHBS. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a follow-up survey to the 2003 EHBS to collect health benefits offering data from firms with fewer than 50 workers. We used McNemar's test to verify that the follow-up survey provided results comparable to the EHBS, and t-tests were used to determine nonresponse bias. We applied a simple weighting adjustment to the EHBS. DATA COLLECTION: The data for both the EHBS and the follow-up survey were collected by the same survey research firm. The EHBS interviews the person most knowledgeable about the firm's health benefits, while the follow-up survey interviews the first person who answers the telephone whether they are the most knowledgeable or not. Principal Findings. Firms with 3-9 workers were more likely to exhibit a bias than were firms with 10-24 workers and 25-49 workers. Although the calculated bias for each size category was not significant, there is sufficient evidence to warrant caution when reporting offer rates. CONCLUSIONS: Survey nonresponse in the EHBS produces an upward bias on estimates for the offer rates of small firms. Although not significant, this upward bias is because of nonresponse by small firms that do not offer health benefits. Our research is limited in that we only control for differences in the size of the firm.

Employer-sponsored health insurance in New York: findings from the 2003 Commonwealth Fund/HRET survey.

A 2003 Commonwealth Fund/Health Research and Educational Trust survey of 576 New York State firms found that, in order to manage rising health costs, employers are increasing the share of the insurance premium that employees pay, delaying the start of benefits, and increasing cost-sharing at the point of service. This has enabled employers to preserve health benefits, but has raised costs for workers and their families. On average, workers' contributions for family coverage rose 54 percent, from $1,392 per year in 2001 to $2,148 per year in 2003. During that time period, fewer workers selected family coverage. Employers are receptive to a wide range of approaches to make coverage more available and affordable for their employees, but they have limited familiarity with public programs that could cover their lower-wage workers, such as Healthy New York, Family Health Plus, or Child Health Plus.

Risky business: when mom and pop buy health insurance for their employees.

The economics of small group insurance makes offering health benefits to employees a risky business. Surveys of employers from 1989 to 2003 reveal that more rapid premium increases are forcing small firms to impose higher cost-sharing. In 2003, premiums for small firms (3-199 workers) increased 15.5 percent, outpacing the 13.2 percent increase for large firms (200+ workers). From 2000 to 2003, deductibles among small firms increased 100 percent in PPO plans when employees use in-network providers and 131 percent when they use out-of-network providers; among large firms, deductibles in PPO plans increased 33 percent and 44 percent, respectively. And in 2003, 40.3 percent of employees in the smallest firms contributed 41 percent or more of the total family premium, compared with only 11.2 percent of employees in large firms. Clearly, fundamental change in the small employer market is necessary, including new options for helping small firms gain access to the advantages large firms have in purchasing health benefits.

Design of mental health benefits: still unequal after all these years.

This paper examines recent trends in the design and organization of coverage for mental health care using data from a Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust (KFF/HRET) national employer survey. Legislation and changes in the delivery of mental health services have altered how mental health insurance is bought and sold. However, our findings reveal that mental health coverage is still typically not offered at a level equivalent to coverage for other medical conditions. We attempt to synthesize these data with prior research as a foundation for informed debates.