SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Employment-based Services”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

140 records · Page 8Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Employment-based health benefits and public-sector coverage: opportunity for leadership.

In this commentary, Helen Darling, speaking from the large-employer perspective, responds to James Robinson's paper on the mature health insurance industry, which faces declining opportunities with employer-based health benefits and growing but less appealing public-sector opportunities for management and other services. The similar needs of public and private employers and payers provide an opportunity for leadership, accelerating innovation and using value-added services to improve safety, quality, and efficiency of health care for all.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Employment-based health insurance: past, present, and future.

We review the rise, stabilization, and decline of employment-based insurance; discuss its transformation from quasi-social insurance to a system based on actuarial principles; and suggest that the presence of Medicare and Medicaid has weakened political pressure for universal coverage. We highlight employment-based insurance's flaws: high administrative costs, inequitable sharing of costs, inability to cover large segments of the population, contribution to labor-management strife, and the inability of employers to act collectively to make health care more cost-effective. We conclude with scenarios for possible trajectories: employment-based insurance flourishes, continues to erode, or is replaced by a more comprehensive system.

Cost Allocation↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Use of subsidies to low-income people for coverage through small employers.

If tax credits or other public subsidies are made available only for health insurance that is not employment-based, serious erosion of employer coverage could result. To prevent this, public subsidies targeted to low-income workers and families could be applied in ways that broaden employer coverage for low-income workers and their families by encouraging small employers with largely low-wage workforces to offer and partially fund health coverage for their workers. To accomplish this, such employers--very few of which now provide health coverage--must be allowed to contribute much less than normally required in the commercial market.

Health Benefit Plans, Employee↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Employment-based health insurance is failing: now what?

Employment-based health insurance is failing. Costs are out of control. Employers have no effective strategy to deal with this. They must think strategically about fundamental change. This analysis explains how employers' purchasing policies contribute to rising costs and block growth of economical care. Single-source managed care is ineffective, and effective managed care cannot be a single source. Employers should create exchanges through which they can offer employees wide, responsible, individual, multiple choices among health care delivery systems and create serious competition based on value for money. Recently introduced technology can assist this process.

Commerce↗

PubMed1997

Issues in mental health care benefits: the costs of mental health parity.

This Issue Brief discusses issues in mental health care benefits. It describes the current state of employment-based mental health benefits and discusses studies and issues regarding full mental health parity. It also includes an analysis of the effect of full mental parity on the uninsured population and the effects of the limited mental health parity provision contained in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The final section discusses the implications of mental health parity for health plans and health insurers. When employers began to provide health insurance benefits to their employees and their families, they extended coverage to include mental health benefits under the same terms as other health care services. Many employers continued to add mental health benefits through the 1970s and early 1980s until cost pressures required employers to re-examine all health care benefits that were offered. They quickly found that, while only a small proportion of the beneficiaries used mental health care services, the costs associated with this care were very high. As a result, employers placed limits on mental health benefits in an attempt to make the insurance risk more manageable. The general strategies employers have used to manage their health care costs are cost sharing, utilization review, managed care, and the packaging of provider services. Employers' cost management strategies may be restricted, however. Five states have mental health parity laws, but three of the states--Rhode Island, Maine, and New Hampshire--apply these laws only to the seriously mentally ill. In addition, 31 states mandate that mental health benefits be provided. However, state mandates apply only to insured plans, not to self-insured employer plans, which are exempt from state regulation of health plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). A number of recent studies have examined the effect of mental health parity on health insurance premiums in a "typical" preferred provider organization and on the uninsured. In general, the studies concluded that mental health parity could increase health insurance premiums, decrease health insurance coverage for non-mental health related illnesses, and increase the number of uninsured individuals. All studies of mental health parity, and mandated benefits in general, assume that there is a strong likelihood that increased health benefit costs would be passed along to workers in the form of higher cost sharing for health insurance, lower wage growth, or lower growth in other employee benefits.

Cost Sharing↗

PubMed1991

Chronic illness: not-so-passive injustice?

Why is our system, which is so biased toward the provision of acute care, underserving the chronically ill?...I think the main reason...has to do with the difficulty of providing for the needs of the chronically ill through a system of largely employment-based private insurance. People who are chronically ill are likely to drop out of employment: they are not a group that employment-based insurance is intended to serve or that employers have an interest in serving....I do not believe we can shift the focus of organization of services for the chronically ill to home or family, as Douard suggests, without reforming the insurance system....

Chronic Disease↗

PubMed2001

To offer or not to offer: the role of price in employers' health insurance decisions.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of changes in price on employers' decisions to offer health insurance. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: A 1993 survey of 22,347 private employers in ten states was used. STUDY DESIGN: Probit regression was used to estimate the probability of offering insurance as a function of the price and employer characteristics. For employers who did not offer insurance, a price cannot be directly observed. We estimated price for nonofferors using reported quotes received by recent shoppers and a selection model to correct for differences between recent shoppers and nonshoppers. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Changes in price affect decisions to offer insurance; however, even a 40 percent reduction in premiums would lead to only a 2 to 3 percentage point increase in the share of employers offering insurance. Employers of low-wage workers are substantially less likely to offer health insurance than other employers. CONCLUSIONS: Policies to reduce the number of uninsured that focus on increasing the supply of employment-based insurance are unlikely to have the intended effect unless coupled with policies to help low-wage workers afford insurance.

Data Collection↗

PubMed2004

Trends in health insurance coverage and access among black, Latino and white Americans, 2001-2003.

Overall health insurance rates changed little among nonelderly black, Latino and white Americans between 2001 and 2003, according to new findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). But sources of coverage shifted--especially for Latinos--from employment-based insurance to public coverage, suggesting the economic downturn took a greater toll on Latinos. Low-income Latinos and whites were particularly hard hit by declines in employer coverage. Shifting sources of coverage had little effect on access to medical care. With the sole exception of decreased access to specialists among blacks, access to care did not change between 2001 and 2003. Significant gaps in access to care among Latinos, blacks and whites persisted, with Latinos and blacks consistently reporting lower levels of access than whites.

Adult↗

PubMed1995

Employment-based health insurance: implications of the sampling unit for policy analysis.

One of the least understood aspects of using employer data for the health reform debate concerns important differences between enterprise- and establishment-level surveys of employers. We demonstrate that the choice of sampling unit affects the size distribution of employees between large and small firms, as well as the estimated proportion of firms offering health insurance. Because health insurance decisions in multi-establishment enterprises generally are made for the entire enterprise rather than individual establishments, we conclude that enterprise surveys are most appropriate for collecting information on the factors affecting the decision to provide health insurance coverage. Nevertheless, an establishment-level survey may be preferred for evaluating decisions made at the state, regional, or industry level. But establishment-level surveys will underestimate the impact of an employer mandate on the unit that ultimately makes the decision to offer health insurance--the enterprise. Given the enormous human and financial stakes involved in health care reform, we urge policymakers and analysts to reflect on the strengths and limitations of alternative sampling units, and to consider the implications for interpreting survey data and formulating policy decisions.

Fee-for-Service Plans↗

PubMedDate not supplied

How will changes in health insurance tax policy and employer health plan contributions affect access to health care and health care costs?

OBJECTIVE: To understand how changes in federal taxation of and employer contributions to health insurance benefits affect the decisions of firms to offer insurance, the willingness of households to purchase different health plans, and the resultant health expenditures. DESIGN: Economic policy simulation. SETTING: Secondary data analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 18,343 sampled families (representing 77 million total families throughout the United States) with a working household head from the 1988 Current Population Survey who were not covered by either Medicare, Medicaid, or CHAMPUS (Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services) insurance. INTERVENTIONS: One intervention limits the amounts of tax-free employer contributions to health insurance premiums to 80% of our estimate of the base plan in the market and assumes that employer contributions will also be limited to this maximum. A second intervention eliminates the favorable tax treatment of employer-paid premiums altogether and assumes that employees will pay the full price of insurance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in the number of working families offered employment-based insurance, change in insurance plan choice, and change in medical spending. RESULTS: Capping the favorable tax treatment and employer contributions decreases the number of families offered employment-based insurance by approximately 91,000, increases the number of families selecting the least generous insurance plan from 20% under the current situation to 33%, and reduces overall health spending by less than 2%. By eliminating the tax exemption altogether, the number of families offered employment-based insurance decreases by approximately half a million families, the number of families selecting the least generous plan goes from 20% to 40%, and overall spending falls by about $16 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating the tax subsidy and limiting employer-paid contributions to the low-cost plan substantially increases the number of low-income uninsured under a voluntary insurance system, decreases overall spending only modestly, but would raise tax revenues by $36 billion. These tax revenues could be used to assist low-income families to obtain insurance coverage.

Competitive Medical Plans↗

PubMed1994

Health system reform in the Czech Republic. Policy lessons from the initial experience of the general health insurance company.

The Czech Republic is among the most aggressive of the former Warsaw Pact countries in encouraging competition and free-market reform. This aggressiveness was extended into the health care sector when, in 1992, a mandatory employment-based health insurance system was introduced. The move from a controlled socialist structure to an insurance-based, fee-for-service model occurred in a short time. Health care spending increased 50% in 2 years and now approaches that of many industrialized nations. Claims for reimbursements are increasing at a rate of 5% to 7% per quarter. Market incentives have changed behaviors within the medical community. Newly privatized physicians generate greater volume and consume more resources than those continuing as state employees. Policy issues requiring further evaluation include supply, distribution, and relative valuation of physician services; clinical resource allocation; and cost containment.

Czech Republic↗

PubMed1993

The effect of HMOs on premiums in employment-based health plans.

This study documents the effect of HMOs on premiums in employment-based health plans. We analyzed a survey of Minnesota employers conducted in 1986. Among 922 usable observations, 239 firms offered HMOs in addition to fee-for-service (FFS) health plans. We estimated an equation for the probability of offering an HMO, followed by equations for HMO enrollment share, and HMO and FFS premiums. The weighted average HMO and FFS premium in firms that offer HMOs was compared to the premium of FFS-only firms. We found that offering an HMO raises the average premium for family coverage health insurance by $25.14 per month and for single coverage by $3.68 per month. This effect was smaller for firms in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. HMOs may be viewed as a progressive and innovative health care benefit, but they are likely to increase firms' health insurance premiums.

Cost Sharing↗

PubMed1996

Family, work, and access to health insurance among mature women.

We use a life course approach to address much ignored variation in access to health insurance. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Mature Women, we reinterpret the role of both family and employment characteristics in shaping coverage. Mature women are more likely to be insured as wives than as workers, but that safety net is only available to married women. As a result, unmarried women are two to three times as likely to be uninsured or to rely on public programs such as Medicaid. And because they are significantly less likely to be married to a covered worker, Black women are two to three times more likely to be uninsured or to rely on public programs. Given rising instability in employment and marital status across the life course, stable health insurance coverage can only be attained by universal rather than employment-based or family-based schemes.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Individuals with COBRA coverage, 1994-1995. Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.

COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985) coverage can be considered advantageous for most workers. Although an employee can be required to pay 102 percent of the premium for COBRA coverage, workers can usually realize significant savings compared to purchasing the equivalent health insurance policy in the private market. Many employers consider COBRA to be a costly mandate for three reasons. First, premiums collected from COBRA beneficiaries typically do not cover the costs of the health care services rendered. Second, COBRA imposes an additional administrative cost on employers. Third, many employers view the penalties for noncompliance as excessively large. We examined data from the 1993 panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to gain a better understanding of the COBRA population. The COBRA population was found to be much older than the population of individuals with employment-based coverage through their current employer. COBRA beneficiaries were also more likely than individuals with coverage through a current employer to be male, married, white and to have a graduate school education. They were also less likely to be working and were more likely to have retirement income. Any attempt to expand COBRA coverage, either through subsidies or by allowing workers to choose from plans with lower premiums, will likely result in increased employer health care costs. Survey data indicate that the primary issue concerning COBRA is its impact on claims experience and administrative costs on active employees, employers and COBRA beneficiaries. If the cost issues are not addressed with future COBRA expansions, employers may consider various alternatives to reduce, shift or eliminate the impact of this increased cost.

Adult↗