Markets for Individual Health Insurance: Can We Make Them Work with Incentives to Purchase Insurance?

Author(s):  
Katherine Swartz

Simple income-based incentives to purchase health insurance (tax credits or deductions, or subsidies) are unlikely to succeed in significantly reducing the number of uninsured because income is not a good predictor of the extent to which individuals use medical service. Proposals to provide incentives to low-income people so they will purchase individual health insurance need to address the inherent tension between the interests of low-risk and high-risk people who rely on individual coverage. If carriers are forced to cover all applicants and to community rate premiums, low-risk people will drop coverage or not apply for it because premiums will exceed their expected need for insurance. Concern for people who currently have access to individual coverage calls for careful examination of options to permit incentive programs to succeed with the individual insurance markets. In particular, attention should focus on using alternatives to simple income-based subsidies to spread the burden of high-risk people's costs broadly, rather than impose the costs on low-risk people who purchase individual coverage. This paper describes three such alternatives. One uses risk adjustments and two rely on reinsurance so that carriers are compensated for the higher costs of covering high-risk people who use incentives to buy insurance. One alternative also permits risk selection by insurance carriers.

Author(s):  
Mark Merlis

Proposals to provide or subsidize health insurance for low-income families must take account of the fact that many workers have access to employer-sponsored insurance (ESI), but decline it because of required employee premium contributions. This article considers a tax credit for the employee share of ESI in the context of a broader program of income-based health insurance tax credits. Helping uninsured workers pay for available ESI could be more cost-effective than subsidizing their coverage in the nongroup market. The credit would also be available to workers who were already covered, both for equity reasons and to reduce the incentives for employers to drop coverage or for workers to shift to subsidized individual plans. One key issue is how to prevent employers from reducing their current health plan contributions to take advantage of the new funding. Other design questions considered by the article include whether workers should be able to choose between ESI and nongroup coverage, whether minimum benefit standards should apply for employer plans, and how to achieve a fair balance in subsidies for group and nongroup coverage.


Author(s):  
Lawrence Zelenak

This paper describes a new system of tax credits to help low-income workers pay for health insurance. The system would be designed to subsidize health insurance coverage for workers who are currently uninsured, or who pay high premiums for nongroup insurance. Anyone age 19 or older who is not covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or employer-sponsored health insurance would be eligible for a health insurance tax credit (HITC), administered through the Internal Revenue Service. The base amount of the proposed credit would be $2,000 per year for each covered individual, but this amount would be adjusted for the individual's age and sex, according to the effect of age and sex on the cost of insurance coverage. The base amount of the credit would be reduced by $150 for every $1,000 by which a person's income exceeded 200% of the federal poverty level, thus limiting HITC eligibility to lower-income workers. To encourage participation in the credit program, most of the credit would be available through an advance payment system, with final reconciliation after year's end.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Corlette Corlette ◽  
Kevin W. Lucia Lucia ◽  
Justin Giovannelli Giovannelli

2004 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 167-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan C. Monheit ◽  
Joel C. Cantor ◽  
Margaret Koller ◽  
Kimberley S. Fox

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e043837
Author(s):  
Usha Dutta ◽  
Anurag Sachan ◽  
Madhumita Premkumar ◽  
Tulika Gupta ◽  
Swapnajeet Sahoo ◽  
...  

ObjectivesHealthcare personnel (HCP) are at an increased risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection especially in resource-restricted healthcare settings, and return to homes unfit for self-isolation, making them apprehensive about COVID-19 duty and transmission risk to their families. We aimed at implementing a novel multidimensional HCP-centric evidence-based, dynamic policy with the objectives to reduce risk of HCP infection, ensure welfare and safety of the HCP and to improve willingness to accept and return to duty.SettingOur tertiary care university hospital, with 12 600 HCP, was divided into high-risk, medium-risk and low-risk zones. In the high-risk and medium-risk zones, we organised training, logistic support, postduty HCP welfare and collected feedback, and sent them home after they tested negative for COVID-19. We supervised use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and kept communication paperless.ParticipantsWe recruited willing low-risk HCP, aged <50 years, with no comorbidities to work in COVID-19 zones. Social distancing, hand hygiene and universal masking were advocated in the low-risk zone.ResultsBetween 31 March and 20 July 2020, we clinically screened 5553 outpatients, of whom 3012 (54.2%) were COVID-19 suspects managed in the medium-risk zone. Among them, 346 (11.4%) tested COVID-19 positive (57.2% male) and were managed in the high-risk zone with 19 (5.4%) deaths. One (0.08%) of the 1224 HCP in high-risk zone, 6 (0.62%) of 960 HCP in medium-risk zone and 23 (0.18%) of the 12 600 HCP in the low-risk zone tested positive at the end of shift. All the 30 COVID-19-positive HCP have since recovered. This HCP-centric policy resulted in low transmission rates (<1%), ensured satisfaction with training (92%), PPE (90.8%), medical and psychosocial support (79%) and improved acceptance of COVID-19 duty with 54.7% volunteering for re-deployment.ConclusionA multidimensional HCP-centric policy was effective in ensuring safety, satisfaction and welfare of HCP in a resource-poor setting and resulted in a willing workforce to fight the pandemic.


2004 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 79-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin ◽  
M. Susan Marquis ◽  
Jill M. Yegian

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-157
Author(s):  
Liani Surya Rakasiwi

This study analyzed the impact of demography and socioeconomic status on individual health status in Indonesia. The data used Indonesia Family Life Survey 5 (IFLS 5). The study use logit regression model for analysis with health status variable as dependent variable. The other variable such as demography and socioeconomic status as independent variables. Socioeconomic status seen from two measures, namely education and income. The result of this study concludes the demography influence significantly on individual health status in Indonesia. Individual who lives in urban area has higher probability of being health by 1,02 percent compared to individual who lives in rural area. The other variable like socioeconomic status also influences significantly on the individual health status in Indonesia. Individual with longer years of education has higher probability of being health by 3,07 percent compared to individual with less years of education. Individual with high income has higher probability of being health compared to individual with low income.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document