Pursuit of Truthiness

my gut tells me I know economics

Research Findings

with 4 comments

Given that my main job for the last ~6 months has been to do economic research, I thought it might be worth summarizing what I have found so far.

My first paper, “The Effect of Health Insurance Benefit Mandates on Premiums“, finds that recent increases in health insurance premiums can be largely attributed to states requiring health insurance plans to cover more and more things. Previous research had found mixed evidence for this. Strangely, most previous papers examined the premiums on individual health insurance, even though the vast majority of Americans have group health insurance (usually through their employer).

These findings take on new importance due to the individual mandate. Previously, states passed benefit mandates not because they were necessary, but in order to satisfy certain interest groups; before 1965 most states had no benefit mandates. But once everyone is required to have “health insurance”, we need to decide what plans must include in order to count as “health insurance”. My paper suggests that it might be a good idea to keep these “Essential Health Benefits” relatively narrow.

My second paper, “Who Pays the High Health Costs of Older Workers? Evidence from Prostate Cancer Screening Mandates“, focuses in on one specific mandate that mostly benefits men over 50. I find that the cost of this mandate is passed on to men over 50 in the form of lower wages. Some men also lose access to employer insurance altogether.

Some of the general lessons from my work so far:

1) There are no free lunches: getting higher benefits means incurring higher costs

2) Laws passed with good intentions can backfire, hurting the very people they are intended to help

3) Employer-based health insurance messes up labor markets

My future work will examine point 3 in more depth. I will examine the good (or perhaps bad) things that happen when people get access to affordable health insurance that isn’t tied to their employment.

Written by James Bailey

October 4, 2012 at 12:36 pm

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. the whole idea of actuarial fair insurance is somewhat of an inside joke. you should check profitability reports of various companies like that one paper we read in Health, but then tie profitability reports to when the mandates were passed and actually initiated. I would be willing to wager that these mandates increase profitability of the company but that is just a guess.

    andrew robinson

    October 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm

  2. That’s a good idea. A common analogy for mandates is that its like telling people that if they want a car it has to be a Lexus; car companies might be more profitable in that case. It does seem like insurers tend to lobby against mandates more than for them though. I think that the Blues at least release data on their costs and revenues.

    James Bailey

    October 4, 2012 at 1:18 pm

  3. […] is more about policy than status (there are dozens of us!), you will probably these papers by me and RomneyCare/ACA architect Jonathan Gruber enlightening. Rather than insisting that the decision […]

  4. […] Applied Economics. The paper focuses on one specific mandate that mostly benefits men over 50. I find that the cost of this mandate is passed on to men over 50 in the form of lower wages. Some men also […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: