Sinaiko Anna D, Layton Timothy J, Rose Sherri, McGuire Thomas G
Department of Health Policy & Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Room 409, Boston, MA 02115.
Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School.
Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2017 Dec;17(3-4):219-236. doi: 10.1007/s10742-017-0170-3. Epub 2017 May 26.
While family purchase of health insurance may benefit insurance markets by pooling individual risk into family groups, the correlation across illness types in families could exacerbate adverse selection. We analyze the impact of family pooling on risk for health insurers to inform policy about family-level insurance plans. Using data on 8,927,918 enrollees in fee-for-service commercial health plans in the 2013 Truven MarketScan database, we compare the distribution of annual individual health spending across four pooling scenarios: (1) "Individual" where there is no pooling into families; (2) "real families" where costs are pooled within families; (3) "random groups" where costs are pooled within randomly generated small groups that mimic families in group size; and (4) "the Sims" where costs are pooled within random small groups which match families in demographics and size. These four simulations allow us to identify the separate contributions of group size, group composition, and family affinity in family risk pooling. Variation in individual spending under family pooling is very similar to that within "simulated families" and to that within random groups, and substantially lower than when there is no family pooling and individuals choose independently (standard deviation $12,526 vs $11,919, $12,521 and $17,890 respectively). Within-family correlations in health status and utilization do not "undo" the gains from family pooling of risks. Family pooling can mitigate selection and improve the functioning of health insurance markets.
虽然家庭购买健康保险可通过将个人风险集中到家庭群组中使保险市场受益,但家庭中不同疾病类型之间的相关性可能会加剧逆向选择。我们分析家庭风险共担对健康保险公司风险的影响,以便为有关家庭层面保险计划的政策提供参考。利用2013年Truven MarketScan数据库中8927918名参加按服务收费商业健康保险计划的参保者的数据,我们比较了四种风险共担情景下年度个人医疗支出的分布情况:(1)“个人”情景,即不存在家庭层面的风险共担;(2)“真实家庭”情景,即费用在家庭内部进行共担;(3)“随机群组”情景,即费用在随机生成的、在群组规模上模拟家庭的小群组内部进行共担;(4)“模拟家庭”情景,即费用在与家庭在人口统计学特征和规模上相匹配的随机小群组内部进行共担。这四种模拟使我们能够确定在家庭风险共担中群组规模、群组构成和家庭亲合性各自的作用。家庭风险共担情况下个人支出的变化与“模拟家庭”内部以及随机群组内部的情况非常相似,且大大低于不存在家庭风险共担且个人独立选择时的情况(标准差分别为12526美元、11919美元、12521美元和17890美元)。健康状况和医疗服务利用方面的家庭内部相关性并不会“抵消”家庭风险共担带来的收益。家庭风险共担可以减轻逆向选择问题,改善健康保险市场的运作。