Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Effects of raised deductibles at one large firm

  1. #1

    Default Effects of raised deductibles at one large firm

    http://www.vox.com/2015/10/14/952844...urance-kolstad

    At least one assumption made in this report that may need to be substantiated by more evidence (namely that the foregone preventive care is necessary and that neglecting it will lead to sicker patients) but still an interesting study.

    Excerpt:

    Economists Zarek Brot-Goldberg, Amitabh Chandra, Benjamin Handel, and Jonathan Kolstad studied a firm that, in 2013, shifted tens of thousands of workers into high-deductible insurance plans. This was a perfect moment to look at how their patterns of care changed — whether they did, in fact, use the new shopping tools their employer gave them to compare prices.

    Turns out they didn't. The new paper shows that when faced with a higher deductible, patients did not price shop for a better deal. Instead, both healthy and sick patients simply used way less health care.

    "I am a little bit surprised at just how poorly patients were able to do when looking at very similar products, like MRI scans, and with a shopping tool," says Kolstad, an economist at University of California Berkeley and one of the study's co-author. "Two years in, and there's still no evidence they're price shopping."

    This raises a scary possibility: Perhaps higher deductibles don't lead to smarter shoppers but rather, in the long run, sicker patients.
    Paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21632?ut...utm_source=ntw

    Abstract:

    Measuring consumer responsiveness to medical care prices is a central issue in health economics and a key ingredient in the optimal design and regulation of health insurance markets. We study consumer responsiveness to medical care prices, leveraging a natural experiment that occurred at a large self-insured firm which forced all of its employees to switch from an insurance plan that provided free health care to a non-linear, high deductible plan. The switch caused a spending reduction between 11.79%-13.80% of total firm-wide health spending ($100 million lower spending per year). We decompose this spending reduction into the components of (i) consumer price shopping (ii) quantity reductions (iii) quantity substitutions, finding that spending reductions are entirely due to outright reductions in quantity. We find no evidence of consumers learning to price shop after two years in high-deductible coverage. Consumers reduce quantities across the spectrum of health care services, including potentially valuable care (e.g. preventive services) and potentially wasteful care (e.g. imaging services). We then leverage the unique data environment to study how consumers respond to the complex structure of the high-deductible contract. We find that consumers respond heavily to spot prices at the time of care, and reduce their spending by 42% when under the deductible, conditional on their true expected end-of-year shadow price and their prior year end-of-year marginal price. In the first-year post plan change, 90% of all spending reductions occur in months that consumers began under the deductible, with 49% of all reductions coming for the ex ante sickest half of consumers under the deductible, despite the fact that these consumers have quite low shadow prices. There is no evidence of learning to respond to the true shadow price in the second year post-switch.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  2. #2
    This is amazingly depressing. Are people just lazy? Don't have a high deductible plan option but we always check in-network vs. out of network for docs for the family since it impacts the bottom line. Why wouldn't people do basic price shopping? Maybe they aren't lazy - maybe there is a knowledge gap? Or do people view medical care through some sort of weird lens that makes them treat it differently than all other goods and services? Not really sure what is the root cause for this inefficiency.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Not really sure what is the root cause for this inefficiency.
    The incredible difficulty to find both in network locations that work within your schedule and their prices. Its not like they broadcast this stuff like McDonalds or JiffyLube. Hell you can't even call them up half the time and get a straight price without running through what plan you have and who it is through.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  4. #4
    Has anyone actually tried getting pricing info prior to getting a procedure? I'm not sure even the doctors know how much they charge.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  5. #5
    I can barely get a firm price after the fact, much less before hand. My dentist and insurance combo was a crapshoot on if I was going to owe or be owed from overpaying on my previous visit.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-16-2015 at 11:58 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  6. #6
    Ditto. I've gotten a bill that revised the price of a visit half a year after the visit.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Has anyone actually tried getting pricing info prior to getting a procedure? I'm not sure even the doctors know how much they charge.
    You're right, doctors are mostly clueless about the prices charged for the tests/procedures (and meds) they recommend/prescribe for their patients. They don't care if that compensation comes from their patient, an insurance carrier, or government subsidies.....they just expect 100% compensation.

    Yes, I've tried comparing prices for "routine" screenings like blood work, mammograms, colonoscopies. But the providers don't have one set price. The uninsured or self-insured are charged at different rates than those with subsidies from employers or the government (Medicaid, Medicare).

    Compounding the problem is that "recommended" tests/procedures change change all the time, over time. Just recently, the parameters for breast cancer screening has changed.....not just for physicians palpating womens' breasts in their office as part of a "routine" physical exam, but for mammograms in general.

    I'm all for advancements in medicine and healthcare, but I'd rather pay higher taxes that fund R & D instead of propping up the for-profit insurance industry.

  8. #8
    PS, raising insurance deductibles doesn't necessarily lead to better public policy. The OP used health care as an example, but the same dilemma exists in business, generally.

    Edit: Many employees are willing to exchange real wages for future stock profits. But that doesn't mean they can use their employer subsidized health insurance policy to its best advantage....when taking time off for the Dentist or Doctor is docked from their work history.


    Last edited by GGT; 10-20-2015 at 10:40 PM.

  9. #9
    Doesn't surprise me; our system isn't designed for price shopping for most things. If you can even get a price on something (which is pretty damn hard), it would just be a stick price that is a massive multiple over what the doctor/facility expects to actually get from their insurance company.

    Then again, people in socialist plans don't price shop either. Which suggests a general Western inclination to "overvalue" healthcare to the point of being price-inelastic, when in fact it could be more elastic.

  10. #10
    What are you saying, Dread? If you think "Free Markets" are the best ways to promote "Capitalism".....maybe you've fallen prey to propaganda?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •