Quantitative analysis of health insurance reform: separating regulation from redistribution (original) (raw)
Related papers
2010
Two key components of the upcoming health reform are a reorganization of the individual health insurance market and an increase in income redistribution in the economy. Which component contributes more to the welfare outcome of the reform? We address this question by constructing a general equilibrium life cycle model that incorporates both medical expenses and labor income risks. We replicate the key features of the current health insurance system in the U.S. and calibrate the model using the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey dataset. We find that the reform decreases the number of uninsured more than four times. It also brings significant welfare gains equivalent to almost one percent of the annual consumption. However, these welfare gains mostly come from the redistributive measures embedded in the reform. If the reform only reorganizes the individual market, introduces individual mandates but does not include any income-based transfers, the welfare gains are much smaller. This result is mostly driven by the fact that most uninsured people have low income. High burdens of health insurance premiums for this group are relieved disproportionately more by income-based measures than by the new rules in the individual market.
2011
In this paper we develop a stochastic dynamic general equilibrium overlapping generations (OLG) model with endogenous health capital to study the macroeconomic effects of the Affordable Care Act of March 2010 also known as the Obama health care reform. We find that the insurance mandate enforced with fines and premium subsidies successfully reduces adverse selection in private health insurance markets and subsequently leads to almost universal coverage of the working age population. On other hand, spending on health care services increases by almost 6 percent due to moral hazard of the newly insured. Notably, this increase in health spending is partly financed by the larger pool of insured individuals and by government spending. In order to finance the subsidies the government needs to either introduce a 2.7 percent payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200, 000, increase the consumption tax rate by about 1.1 percent, or cut government spending about 1 percent of GDP. A stable outcome across all simulated policies is that the reform triggers increases in health capital, decreases in labor supply, and decreases in the capital stock due to crowding out effects and tax distortions. As a consequence steady state output decreases by up to 2 percent. Overall, we find that the reform is socially beneficial as welfare gains are observed for most generations along the transition path to the new long run equilibrium.
Market Inefficiency, Insurance Mandate and Welfare: US Health Care Reform 2010
Discussion Papers, 2010
In this paper we develop a stochastic dynamic general equilibrium overlapping generations (OLG) model with endogenous health capital to study the macroeconomic effects of the Affordable Care Act of March 2010 also known as the Obama health care reform. We find that the insurance mandate enforced with fines and premium subsidies successfully reduces adverse selection in private health insurance markets and subsequently leads to almost universal coverage of the working age population. On the other hand, spending on health care services increases by almost 6 percent due to moral hazard of the newly insured. This increase in health spending is partly financed by the larger pool of insured individuals and by government spending. In order to finance the subsidies the government needs to either introduce a 2.7 percent payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200, 000, increase the consumption tax rate by about 1.1 percent, or cut government spending about 1 percent of GDP. A stable outcome across all simulated policies is that the reform triggers increases in health capital, decreases in labor supply, and decreases in the capital stock due to crowding out effects and tax distortions. As a consequence steady state output decreases by up to 2 percent. Overall, we find that the reform is socially beneficial as welfare gains are observed for most generations along the transition path to the new long run equilibrium. Finally, we show that the insurance take-up rate is mainly driven by the tax penalty and that the premium subsidies have only a moderate effect on enforcing the mandate.
U.S. tax policy and health insurance demand: Can a regressive policy improve welfare?
Journal of Monetary Economics, 2009
The U.S. tax policy on health insurance is regressive because it favors only those offered group insurance through their employers, who tend to have a relatively high income. Moreover, the subsidy takes the form of deductions from the progressive income tax system, giving high-income earners a larger subsidy. To understand the effects of the policy, we construct a dynamic general equilibrium model with heterogenous agents and an endogenous demand for health insurance. We use the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to calibrate the process for income, health expenditures, and health insurance offer status through employers and succeed in matching the pattern of insurance demand as observed in the data. We find that despite the regressiveness of the current policy, a complete removal of the subsidy would result in a partial collapse of the group insurance market, a significant reduction in the insurance coverage, and a reduction in welfare coverage. There is, however, room for raising the coverage and significantly improving welfare by extending a refundable credit to the individual insurance market.
The welfare gain from replacing the health insurance tax exclusion with lump-sum tax credits
International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, 2011
This paper analyzes the welfare gain from replacing the tax exclusion of employer-provided health insurance with a lump-sum tax credit. It differs from earlier studies in that we look at the welfare cost of health insurance tax exclusion as coming directly from excessive health insurance rather than from overconsumption of medical care and that we account for the labor market effect of the tax exclusion on welfare. Both differences work to produce a smaller tax reform welfare gain. For a set of mid-range parameter values, the welfare gain is about 21% of current health insurance tax expenditures. In addition, government tax expenditures would fall by 38%, and health insurance spending would fall by 77% after the reform.
2012
This paper constructs a dynamic model of health insurance to evaluate the short-and long run effects of policies that prevent firms from conditioning wages on health conditions of their workers, and that prevent health insurance companies from charging individuals with adverse health conditions higher insurance premia. Our study is motivated by recent US legislation that has tightened regulations on wage discrimination against workers with poorer health status (Americans with Disability Act of 2009, ADA, and ADA Amendments Act of 2008, ADAAA) and that will prohibit health insurance companies from charging different premiums for workers of different health status starting in 2014 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA). In the model, a trade-off arises between the static gains from better insurance against poor health induced by these policies and their adverse dynamic incentive effects on household efforts to lead a healthy life. Using household panel data from the PSID we estimate and calibrate the model and then use it to evaluate the static and dynamic consequences of no-wage discrimination and no-prior conditions laws for the evolution of the cross-sectional health and consumption distribution of a cohort of households, as well as ex-ante lifetime utility of a typical member of this cohort. In our quantitative analysis we find that although a combination of both policies is effective in providing full consumption insurance period by period, it is suboptimal to introduce both policies jointly since such policy innovation induces a more rapid deterioration of the cohort health distribution over time. This is due to the fact that combination of both laws severely undermines the incentives to lead healthier lives. The resulting negative effects on health outcomes in society more than offset the static gains from better consumption insurance so that expected discounted lifetime utility is lower under both policies, relative to only implementing wage nondiscrimination legislation.
Social Health Insurance: A Quantitative Exploration
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2016
We quantitatively explore the welfare benets of health insurance over the lifecycle in a dynamic general equilibrium model with health risk and a health care sector. We consider three distinct approaches to designing a health insurance system: (i) a mixed private and public health insurance system similar to the US system, (ii) private health insurance (PHI), and (iii) universal public health insurance (UPHI). Our results indicate that the introduction of the US system into an economy without any health insurance results in large welfare gains, but does not produce the best welfare outcome. The PHI system with some government regulation on premiums is viable and produces welfare gains comparable to the welfare gains generated by the US system. The UPHI system with a high enough coinsurance rate produces better overall welfare outcomes than the other two systems. There exists an optional coinsurance rate that maximizes the welfare benets of the UPHI system. A structural reform that replaces the US system with the UPHI systemi.e., Medicare for allis welfare improving, but would face political headwinds due to opposing welfare eects across income groups.
Aging and Health Financing in the U.S. - A General Equilibrium Analysis
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2006
We quantify the effects of population aging on the US healthcare system. Our analysis is based on a stochastic general equilibrium overlapping generations model of endogenous health accumulation calibrated to match pre-2010 U.S. data. We find that population aging not only leads to large increases in medical spending but also a large shift in the relative size of public vs. private insurance. Without the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aging itself leads to a 36.6 percent increase in health expenditures by 2060 and a 5 percent increase in GDP which is driven by the expansion of the healthcare sector. The group-based health insurance (GHI) market shrinks, while the individual-based health insurance (IHI) market and Medicaid expand significantly. Additional funds equivalent to roughly 4 percent of GDP are required to finance Medicare in 2060 as the elderly dependency ratio increases. The introduction of the ACA increases the fraction of insured workers to 99 percent by 2060, compared to 81 percent without the ACA. This additional increase is mainly driven by the further expansion of Medicaid and the IHI market and the stabilization of the GHI market. Interestingly, the ACA reduces aggregate health care spending by enrolling uninsured workers into Medicaid which pays lower prices for medical services. Overall, the ACA adds to the fiscal cost of population aging mainly via the Medicare and Medicaid expansion.
Health Care, Health Insurance, and the Distribution of American Incomes
RePEc: Research Papers in Economics, 2010
Cash income offers an incomplete picture of the resources available to finance household consumption. Most American families are covered by an insurance plan that pays for some or all of the health care they consume. Only a comparatively small percentage of families pays for the full cost of this insurance out of their cash incomes. As health care has claimed a growing share of consumption, the percentage of care that is financed out of household incomes has declined. Because health care consumption is more important for some groups in the population than others, the growth in spending and changes in the payment system for medical care have reduced the value of standard income measures for assessing relative incomes of the rich and poor and the young and old. More than a seventh of total personal consumption now consists of health care that is purchased with government insurance and employer contributions to employee health plans. This paper combines health care spending and insurance reimbursement data in the Medical Expenditure Panel Study and money income and health coverage data in the Current Population Survey to assess the impact of health insurance on the distribution of income. Our estimates imply that gross money income significantly understates the resources available to finance household purchases. The estimates imply that a more complete measure of resources would show less inequality than the income measures that are currently used. The addition of estimates of the value of health insurance to countable incomes reduces measured inequality in the population and the income gap between young and old. If the analysis were extended over a longer period, it would show a sizeable impact of insurance on inequality trends in the United States.