Insurance coverage and health care spending by state-level Medigap regulations.

Sungchul Park, Norma B. Coe
{"title":"Insurance coverage and health care spending by state-level Medigap regulations.","authors":"Sungchul Park, Norma B. Coe","doi":"10.37765/ajmc.2022.88860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES\nMedigap protects traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries against catastrophic expenses. Federal regulations around Medigap enrollment and pricing are limited to the first 6 months after turning 65 years old. Eight states institute regulations that apply to later enrollment; half use community rating (charging everyone the same premium) and half use both community rating and guaranteed issue (requiring insurers to accept any beneficiary irrespective of health conditions). We examined the impact of state-level Medigap regulations on insurance coverage and health care spending for Medicare beneficiaries.\n\n\nSTUDY DESIGN\nWe used a retrospective cohort study design. Using the 2010-2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, we identified beneficiaries with TM only, TM + Medigap, or Medicare Advantage (MA) by state-level Medigap regulations.\n\n\nMETHODS\nOutcomes were insurance coverage and health care spending. We used an instrumental variable approach to address endogenous insurance choice. We conducted 2-stage least squares regression while controlling for individual-level characteristics and area-level demographic characteristics. Then we used the recycled prediction methods to predict enrollment and spending outcomes for the 3 state-level Medigap regulation scenarios.\n\n\nRESULTS\nAlthough enrollment in TM only was consistent across regulation scenarios, the scenario with community rating and guaranteed issue had lower Medigap enrollment and higher MA enrollment than the no-regulation scenario. Despite negligible health differences, TM + Medigap beneficiaries had higher Medicare spending than TM-only beneficiaries, suggesting moral hazard.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nOur findings suggest a link between additional regulations and lower Medigap and higher MA enrollment. Policy makers should consider the potential effects on insurance coverage, premiums, financial protection, and moral hazard when designing Medigap regulations.","PeriodicalId":267832,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of managed care","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of managed care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2022.88860","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

OBJECTIVES Medigap protects traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries against catastrophic expenses. Federal regulations around Medigap enrollment and pricing are limited to the first 6 months after turning 65 years old. Eight states institute regulations that apply to later enrollment; half use community rating (charging everyone the same premium) and half use both community rating and guaranteed issue (requiring insurers to accept any beneficiary irrespective of health conditions). We examined the impact of state-level Medigap regulations on insurance coverage and health care spending for Medicare beneficiaries. STUDY DESIGN We used a retrospective cohort study design. Using the 2010-2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, we identified beneficiaries with TM only, TM + Medigap, or Medicare Advantage (MA) by state-level Medigap regulations. METHODS Outcomes were insurance coverage and health care spending. We used an instrumental variable approach to address endogenous insurance choice. We conducted 2-stage least squares regression while controlling for individual-level characteristics and area-level demographic characteristics. Then we used the recycled prediction methods to predict enrollment and spending outcomes for the 3 state-level Medigap regulation scenarios. RESULTS Although enrollment in TM only was consistent across regulation scenarios, the scenario with community rating and guaranteed issue had lower Medigap enrollment and higher MA enrollment than the no-regulation scenario. Despite negligible health differences, TM + Medigap beneficiaries had higher Medicare spending than TM-only beneficiaries, suggesting moral hazard. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest a link between additional regulations and lower Medigap and higher MA enrollment. Policy makers should consider the potential effects on insurance coverage, premiums, financial protection, and moral hazard when designing Medigap regulations.
保险覆盖范围和医疗保健支出由州级医疗保险制度规定。
目的medigap保护传统医疗保险(TM)受益人免受灾难性费用的影响。联邦政府对医保注册和定价的规定仅限于65岁后的前6个月。八个州制定了适用于晚入学的规定;一半使用社区评级(向每个人收取相同的保费),一半使用社区评级和担保发行(要求保险公司接受任何受益人,无论其健康状况如何)。我们检查了州一级医疗保险制度对医疗保险受益人的保险覆盖面和医疗保健支出的影响。研究设计我们采用回顾性队列研究设计。通过2010-2016年医疗保险现行受益人调查,我们根据州一级医疗保险计划法规确定了仅TM, TM + Medigap或医疗保险优势(MA)的受益人。方法结局是保险覆盖率和医疗保健支出。我们使用工具变量的方法来解决内生保险选择。在控制个体水平特征和区域水平人口统计学特征的情况下,我们进行了两阶段最小二乘回归。然后,我们使用循环预测方法预测了3种州级医疗保险监管情景下的注册和支出结果。结果尽管只有在不同监管情景下,医疗保险的参保人数是一致的,但与无监管情景相比,有社区评级和担保发行的情景参保人数更低,而有医疗保险的情景参保人数更高。尽管健康差异可以忽略不计,但TM + Medigap受益人的医疗保险支出高于TM受益人,这表明存在道德风险。结论我们的研究结果表明,附加法规与较低的Medigap和较高的MA入学率之间存在联系。政策制定者在设计Medigap法规时,应考虑对保险覆盖范围、保费、财务保护和道德风险的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书