This paper examines the role that population vulnerabilities play in insurance coverage for a representative sample of Latinos and Asians in the United States. Using data from the National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS), these analyses compare coverage differences among and within ethnic subgroups, across states and regions, among types of occupations, and among those with or without English language proficiency. Extensive differences exist in coverage between Latinos and Asians, with Latinos more likely to be (...) uninsured. Potential explanations include the type of occupations available to Latinos and Asians, reforms in immigration laws, length of time in the United States, and regional differences in safety-net coverage. Policy implications are discussed. (shrink)

This paper examines the lack of health insurance coverage in the US as a public policy issue. It first compares the problem of health insurance coverage to the problem of unemployment to show that in terms of the numbers of individuals affected lack of health insurance is a problem comparable in importance to the problem of unemployment. Secondly, the paper discusses the methodology involved in measuring health insurance coverage, and (...) argues that the current method of estimation of the uninsured underestimates the extent that individuals go without health insurance. Third, the paper briefly introduces Amartya Sen's functionings and capabilities framework to suggest away of representing the extent to which individuals are uninsured. Fourth, the paper sketches a means of operationalizing the Sen representation of the uninsured in terms of the disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) measure. (shrink)

Using data from the National Hospital Discharge Survey, this paper analyzes the effect of Medicaid eligibility expansions from 1985 to 1996 on the health insurance coverage of women giving birth. We find that the eligibility expansions reduced the proportion of pregnant women who were uninsured by approximately 10%, although the magnitude of this decrease is sensitive to specification. The decrease in the proportion of uninsured pregnant women came at the expense of a substantial reduction in private (...) class='Hi'>insurance coverage (crowd-out) of at least 55%. Substantial crowd-out and the relatively small change in the proportion uninsured suggest that Medicaid eligibility expansions may have had small effects on infant and maternal health. (shrink)

Employers must determine the types of health care plans to offer and also set employee premiums for each plan provided. Depending on the structure of the employee share of premiums across different health insurance plans, the incentives to choose one plan over another are altered. If employees know premiums do not fully reflect the risk differences among workers, such pricing can give rise to a so-called “death spiral” due to adverse selection. This paper uses longitudinal information from (...) a natural experiment in the management of health benefits for a large employer to explore the impact of moving from a fixed-dollar contribution policy to a partially risk-adjusted employer contribution policy. Our results show that implementing a significant risk adjustment had no discernable effect on adverse selection against the most generous indemnity insurance policy. This stands in stark contrast to previous studies, which have tended to estimate large impacts attributed to selection when employers move to a fixed-dollar policy from one with some risk adjustment. Further analysis suggests that previous studies, which appeared to detect plans in the throes of a death spiral, may instead have been reflecting an inexorable movement away from a non-preferred product, one that would have been inefficient for nearly all workers even in the absence of adverse selection. (shrink)

This study examines the relative effects of three policy levers on health coverage and costs in plans aimed at covering all Americans. Specifically, using microsimulation analysis and hypothetical proposals, it assesses how the generosity of financial assistance, an employer mandate, and an individual mandate affect the level of uninsurance, distribution of coverage, and federal costs, holding delivery system and benefits constant. The results suggest that only an individual mandate would cover all the uninsured; neither an employer mandate (...) nor generous subsidies alone would be sufficient. The distribution of coverage would be least disrupted by an employer mandate, while 7.3% of people could lose employer coverage with generous subsidies and a voluntary purchasing pool. Federal costs would be highest under a combined individual and employer mandate since there would be costs to minimize disruption. Although less generous subsidies coupled with an individual mandate could yield universal coverage at a low federal cost, doing so would require large, new payments by individuals. Other key trade-offs are discussed. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 10, October 2019, Page 10-11.

Lack of health insurance coverage is a large and growing problem for millions of American families. Rising health care costs and economic insecurity continue to threaten the bedrock of the health insurance system - employer-sponsored coverage - while states’ fiscal situations and the escalating federal deficit complicate any efforts at reform. Providing health insurance coverage to the millions of uninsured remains a major health care challenge for the nation and (...) understanding the current health insurance environment, who the uninsured are, and why they are uninsured is critical when considering health care reform. This paper aims to define the problem of the uninsured, providing an overview of the uninsured in America and the roles and limits of private and public insurance. Following this discussion, the paper describes the current health insurance environment and examines the prospects for improving coverage. (shrink)

Lack of health insurance coverage is a large and growing problem for millions of American families. Rising health care costs and economic insecurity continue to threaten the bedrock of the health insurance system - employer-sponsored coverage - while states’ fiscal situations and the escalating federal deficit complicate any efforts at reform. Providing health insurance coverage to the millions of uninsured remains a major health care challenge for the nation and (...) understanding the current health insurance environment, who the uninsured are, and why they are uninsured is critical when considering health care reform. This paper aims to define the problem of the uninsured, providing an overview of the uninsured in America and the roles and limits of private and public insurance. Following this discussion, the paper describes the current health insurance environment and examines the prospects for improving coverage. (shrink)

In the current era of the Sustainable Development Goals, many countries are attempting to strengthen their health system and achieving Universal Health Coverage. The Korean National Health Insurance system functions as a core element of health financing, contributing to achieving UHC by promoting public health and social security through insurance benefits for prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, childbirth, and health promotion. The Republic of Korea achieved 100% NHI coverage of the target (...) population in 1989, 12 years after the introduction of the social insurance system. However, poor coverage of health services and lack of financial protection are major obstacles to achieving UHC. Therefore, the Korean government announced and implemented ‘Moon Jae-in Care’ in August 2017 to enhance the coverage rate of NHI by 70%. First, this study reviews the existing health insurance system in Korea from the perspective of health financing and UHC. Second, it analyses ‘Moon Jae-in Care’, based on the main framework of UHC. Third, it considers the ethical implications of these developments, with focus on the principles of equity, fairness, autonomy, and solidarity. Although the NHI reform is expected to propel Korean health care closer to UHC, many ethical, social, and political issues remain. (shrink)

By 2014, each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia will have a new health insurance exchange, or marketplace, established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These exchanges are the centerpiece of the reform law: they will be the main portals where people who do not have health insurance coverage through their jobs and small businesses will go, either in person or online, to find a health plan and to learn (...) about and apply for federal subsidies. The most immediate challenge facing all fifty‐one exchanges is fulfilling their most basic role: ensuring that all who are eligible to enroll in qualified health plans and to receive federal subsidies in fact enroll. (shrink)

As pressures increase to contain growing healthcare expenditures, there is currently a prominent rise in the shift of healthcare costs to patients in the form of deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance. Rising co-payments are part of a larger picture of increasing overall out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures. From 1990 to 2000, per capita out-of-pocket payments for healthcare reached $707 in the United States, and doubled in several European countries with universal health insurance, reaching $396 in Denmark, $290 in Germany, and (...) $466 in Italy in 2000. (shrink)

American health policy today faces dual problems of too little health coverage at too high a cost. The mix of public and private financing leaves about one seventh of the population without any insurance coverage. At the same time, the coverage Americans do have costs an ever-larger share of our country's productive capacity. This "paradox of excess and deprivation" results from the incremental approach the U.S. has taken to promoting incompatible policy goals of increasing (...) health insurance coverage and medical quality while trying to control costs, without squarely confronting tradeoffs. This essay examines the record of incremental developments and draws lessons for current efforts at reform. (shrink)

American health policy today faces dual problems of too little coverage at too high a cost. The mix of private and public financing leaves about one seventh of the population without any insurance coverage. At the same time, the coverage Americans do have costs an ever-larger share of our country’s productive capacity. The U.S. pays well above what other countries pay and what many people, health plans, businesses, and governments want to pay. This “paradox (...) of excess and deprivation” results from the incremental approach the U.S. has taken to promoting incompatible policy goals of increasing health insurance coverage and medical quality while trying to control costs, without squarely confronting tradeoffs. This essay examines the record of incremental developments and draws lessons for current efforts at reform. (shrink)

This chapter explores two questions in detail: How should we determine the threshold for costs that individuals are asked to bear through insurance premiums or care-related out-of-pocket costs, including user fees and copayments? and What is an adequate relationship between costs and benefits? This chapter argues that preventing impoverishment is a morally more urgent priority than protecting households against income fluctuations, and that many health insurance plans may not adequately protect individuals from health care costs that (...) threaten to drop their financial status below a decent minimum. A design that places greater emphasis on preventing impoverishment and finances the achievement of that goal by reducing unnecessary subsidies to better-off households would better accord with a sufficientarian approach to health care. -/- . (shrink)

America's patchwork quilt of health care coverage is coming apart at the seams. The system, such as it is, is built upon an inherently problematic base: employment. By definition, an employment-based approach, by itself, will not assure universal coverage of the entire population. If an employment-based approach is to be the centerpiece of a system that provides universal coverage, special attention must be paid to all the categories of individuals who are not employees – children, unemployed (...) spouses or singles, the unemployable ill and disabled, persons between jobs, students, retirees, the elderly. Moreover, in a purely voluntary employment-based arrangement, some employers will not provide insurance at all, and others will provide inadequate coverage, necessitating other special provisions for coverage. As a consequence, about one out of six people now has no health coverage whatsoever, and even more have inadequate coverage. All the while, the rapidly-increasing transaction costs of sustaining this grossly inadequate pluralistic system eat up sufficient funds to provide basic benefits to the entire population. The time for systematic reforms has come and gone; what is now needed is action to prevent disaster, followed by a complete rebuilding of this country's health coverage system. Although perhaps more likely to be tried than more radical, completely nationalized, ones, stepwise reforms may not go far enough to cure the significant ills of the current employment-based system. Passage of inadequate reforms, then, could well set the stage for nationalized health care in the not too distant future. (shrink)

National attention on issues of public health preparedness necessarily brings into sharp focus the question of how to assure adequate, community-wide health care financing for preventive, acute care, and long-term medical care responses to public health threats. In the U.S., public and private health insurance represents the principal means by which medical care is financed. Beyond the threshold challenge of the many persons without any, or a stable form of, coverage lie challenges related to (...) the structure and characteristics of health insurance itself, particularly the commercial industry and its newly emerging market of consumer-driven health plans. States vary significantly in how they approach the regulation of insurance and in their willingness to support various types of insurance markets. This variation is attributable to the size and robustness of the insurance market, the political environment, and regulatory tradition and custom. Reconciling health insurance markets with public health-related health care financing needs arising from public health threats should be viewed as a major dimension of national health reform. (shrink)

This is a volatile time for health insurance policy. Medicare and Medicaid are in turmoil, as is the private health insurance market. Public and private health insurance costs constitute eighty percent of healthcare spending in the United States. Public health professionals depend on the insurance system to behave in ways that are responsive to public health in prevention and crisis management.Seventy-five percent of the American population, excluding the elderly, has coverage (...) through the private health insurance system. Ninety percent of this group receives their insurance through employer-sponsored programs, and the remaining ten percent buy their own coverage. Approximately ten percent of the non-elderly population has insurance through a government program, and fifteen percent of the non-elderly population, almost forty-one million Americans, is uninsured. (shrink)

The reform of the health care system will include a mandate: Individuals are required to purchase health insurance provided that affordable options are available. But what is affordable health insurance? Three accounts of affordability of health coverage have been advanced. The first two accounts are empirical. The third account is needs-based. All three accounts are inadequate. I propose a fourth, the reasonable tradeoff account, according to which individuals should only be required to make (...) reasonable tradeoffs in order to pay for their health coverage. That is, health insurance is affordable if in order to pay for it one does not to have to sacrifice other benefit(s) that are comparable in importance to the benefits of health coverage. (shrink)

In thinking about how to expand insurance coverage, the issue that matters is whether insurance enables sick and high-risk people to get medical care. Over the course of three decades, market-oriented insurance reforms have shifted more costs of illness onto people who need and use medical care. By making the users of care pay for it , cost-sharing discourages sick people from getting care, even if they have insurance, and for people with low-incomes and tight (...) budgets, cost-sharing can effectively deny them access to care. Thus, covering or not covering sick people is the core issue of health insurance reform, both as a determinant of support and opposition to proposals, and as the proper yardstick for evaluating reform ideas. (shrink)

In most other nations, insurance for medical care is called sickness insurance, and it covers sick people. In the United States, we have “health insurance,” and its major carriers — commercial insurers, large employers, and increasingly government programs — strive to avoid sick people and cover only the healthy. This perverse logic at the heart of the American health insurance system is the key to reform debates.Focusing on sick people versus healthy people might seem (...) a strange way to view the coverage issue. Most discussions of insurance categorize people into other groupings: the insured versus the uninsured; Caucasian whites versus other racial and ethnic groups; men versus women; poor and low-income people versus everybody else; children, adults, and the elderly; or citizens versus immigrants and undocumented aliens. More recently, health researchers have begun talking about “vulnerable populations,” using most of the same demographic groupings and adding other illness-inducing factors such as social isolation, stress, and impoverished neighborhoods. But as I will show, insurance plans now use premiums, cost-sharing, and other design features in ways that indirectly divide each of these groups into the sick and the healthy, to the detriment of the sick. By shifting the costs of illness onto people who use medical care — that is, sick people — market-oriented reforms of the last few decades have eroded insurance in the name of strengthening it. (shrink)

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the nation's first comprehensive health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Within weeks, twenty states filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of its most politically charged feature—an individual purchase mandate. By 2014, the bill requires most individuals to have health insurance. With certain exceptions (pertaining to income level and religious objections), individuals without qualifying coverage will pay an annual tax penalty. If anything, the tax (...) penalty is too low compared with the cost of insurance, so it may not provide sufficient incentive for healthy individuals to purchase insurance. But it remains controversial because it compels people to purchase coverage they choose not to have, raising the question whether Congress can lawfully and ethically require individuals to contract with, and transfer money to, a private party. (shrink)

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was designed to increase health insurance coverage in the United States. Its most controversial feature is the requirement that US residents purchase health insurance. Opponents of the mandate argue that requiring people to contribute to the collective good is inconsistent with respect for individual liberty. Rather than appeal to the collective good, this Viewpoint argues for a duty to buy health insurance based on the moral (...) duty individuals have to reduce certain burdens they pose on others. When some people have a duty to rescue, others may have a duty to take rescue precautions, in this case, to purchase health insurance to cover acute and emergency care needs. Requiring that individuals meet this obligation is consistent with respect of individual liberty. (shrink)

National attention on issues of public health preparedness necessarily brings into sharp focus the question of how to assure adequate, community-wide health care financing for preventive, acute care, and long-term medical care responses to public health threats. In the U.S., public and private health insurance represents the principal means by which medical care is financed. Beyond the threshold challenge of the many persons without any, or a stable form of, coverage lie challenges related to (...) the structure and characteristics of health insurance itself, particularly the commercial industry and its newly emerging market of consumer-driven health plans. States vary significantly in how they approach the regulation of insurance and in their willingness to support various types of insurance markets. This variation is attributable to the size and robustness of the insurance market, the political environment, and regulatory tradition and custom. Reconciling health insurance markets with public health-related health care financing needs arising from public health threats should be viewed as a major dimension of national health reform. (shrink)

National attention on issues of public health preparedness necessarily brings into sharp focus the question of how to assure adequate, community-wide health care financing for preventive, acute care, and long-term medical care responses to public health threats. In the U.S., public and private health insurance represents the principal means by which medical care is financed. Beyond the threshold challenge of the many persons without any, or a stable form of, coverage lie challenges related to (...) the structure and characteristics of health insurance itself, particularly the commercial industry and its newly emerging market of consumer-driven health plans. States vary significantly in how they approach the regulation of insurance and in their willingness to support various types of insurance markets. This variation is attributable to the size and robustness of the insurance market, the political environment, and regulatory tradition and custom. Reconciling health insurance markets with public health-related health care financing needs arising from public health threats should be viewed as a major dimension of national health reform. (shrink)

Definition of the problemFrom an ethical point of view we analyse the ruling of the German Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, G‑BA) of September 2019 to revise the guidelines about the coverage of noninvasive prenatal tests (NIPT) by mandatory health insurance, in order to include them under specified conditions. The decision contains four essential elements: a definition of the aim of NIPT testing (to avoid invasive testing), a criterion of access (test must be “necessary” for the pregnant (...) woman to tackle her individual situation), statements about the process of decision-making (after counselling by a physician and case by case) and a normative contextualization (termination of pregnancy under § 218 a German penal law) which is to be found in its explanations. There are tensions in the proposed model that oscillate about two axes: (1) The suffering that results from a possible birth of a child with trisomy or from not knowing about the genetic condition of the fetus can ultimately only be evaluated subjectively, from the perspective of the pregnant woman. (2) The meaning of an individual decision in the case-by-case model remains unclear because when judging about individual cases general points of view also need to be considered. However, we argue that the model of the G‑BA could be a sociopolitically and ultimately also ethically defensible pragmatic solution, exactly because of its paradoxes and its inherent flexibility. (shrink)

On 27 September 2002, the Bush administration issued final rules allowing states to define a fetus as a child eligible for government‐subsidized health care under the Children's Health Insurance Program. CHIP does not cover any illegal immigrants and only covers legal immigrants who have been in the country for five years. Babies born in the United States, however, are citizens and therefore eligible for assistance. The response from women's groups and pro‐choice advocates was swift and unanimously negative.

This article will examine current US health insurance policies for providing fertility services and Assisted Reproductive Technologies and analyze the open-ended policies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This state in particular will be discussed in depth, as there are virtually no limits on infertility provision or coverage. However, tightening up Massachusetts’s health insurance policies by putting parameters on provision and coverage of Assisted Reproductive Technologies will allow the infertile to continue to access paid-for treatment (...) while ensuring that the goal of health insurance coverage—which I understand to be the provision of paid coverage to address medical conditions—is maintained. (shrink)