Affordability of Insurance: Affordability of Insurance: Application of ACA Definitions in a Application of ACA Definitions in a Linked Employee-Employer Data Set Linked Employee-Employer Data Set G. Edward Miller G. Edward Miller Thomas M. Selden Thomas M. Selden Jessica P. Vistnes Jessica P. Vistnes AHRQ Conference September 10, 2012 AHRQ Conference September 10, 2012
22
Embed
Affordability of Insurance: Application of ACA Definitions in a Linked Employee-Employer Data Set G. Edward Miller Thomas M. Selden Jessica P. Vistnes.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Affordability of Insurance: Affordability of Insurance: Application of ACA Definitions in aApplication of ACA Definitions in a
Linked Employee-Employer Data Set Linked Employee-Employer Data Set
G. Edward MillerG. Edward MillerThomas M. SeldenThomas M. SeldenJessica P. VistnesJessica P. Vistnes
AHRQ Conference September 10, 2012AHRQ Conference September 10, 2012
Affordable Care Act (ACA)Affordable Care Act (ACA)
The ACA will expand access to health insurance by: The ACA will expand access to health insurance by:
Research has found a relationship between employers’ Research has found a relationship between employers’ insurance decisions and alternative forms of coverage for insurance decisions and alternative forms of coverage for employees. employees.
– Spousal offers of ESISpousal offers of ESI
– Public coverage Public coverage
The ACA will present employers with important new sources of The ACA will present employers with important new sources of insurance coverage to consider.insurance coverage to consider.
Important Information to Assess the ACAImportant Information to Assess the ACA
Important categories of Modified Adjusted Gross Family Income Important categories of Modified Adjusted Gross Family Income (MAGI) in the ACA. (MAGI) in the ACA. – ≤ ≤ 138% FPL 138% FPL (Medicaid eligible)(Medicaid eligible)
Important to know:Important to know:– Within-employer distribution of workers’ MAGI. Within-employer distribution of workers’ MAGI.
– Alternative sources of coverage. Alternative sources of coverage.
– PremiumsPremiums
No nationally representative data set has all required data.No nationally representative data set has all required data.
Employer-Sim ModelEmployer-Sim Model
Synthetic workforces: Synthetic workforces: – Use household data on workers to ‘populate’ establishment-Use household data on workers to ‘populate’ establishment-
level data on employers and their health insurance plans.level data on employers and their health insurance plans.
MEPS Insurance Component (IC): MEPS Insurance Component (IC): – 2010 data on private establishments2010 data on private establishments– Out-of-Pocket (OOP) premiums for all plans offeredOut-of-Pocket (OOP) premiums for all plans offered
MEPS Household Component (HC): MEPS Household Component (HC): – 2005-2007: pooled data on workers and their families2005-2007: pooled data on workers and their families– MAGI: constructed per ACA rules, CPI-adjusted to 2010 $sMAGI: constructed per ACA rules, CPI-adjusted to 2010 $s
Linking Workers to EstablishmentsLinking Workers to Establishments
Variable Category Level / Type of Information Used
Location State, Census region / division
Industry 2 Digit NAICS / collapsed codes
Multi-location firm? Y/N indicator
Establishment size Number of employees in ranges
Establishment offers insurance? Y/N indicator
Draw a sample of 300+ workers that match each establishment on these characteristics.
Include 100+ low, medium and high wage workers. Workers are sampled with replacement.
Raking Workers WeightsRaking Workers Weights
Variable Category Level / Type of Information Used
Sex % Female
Age % Age 50 plus
Union % In union
Wage % Low, medium, high wage
Fulltime % Fulltime
0/1 variables for MEPS HC workers Percent distributions in MEPS IC establishments. Iteratively adjust MEPS HC sample weights until worker
characteristics match estab. % distributions..
Synthetic WorkforcesSynthetic Workforces
Synthetic workforces (in principle) can be used to examine any employee/family characteristic from the MEPS HC.
Quality depends on correlation between the HC characteristic and variables used in linking and raking.
– We do not provide standard errors, which could be quite large given the multiple sources of data and imperfections in the synthetic match
Modified adjusted gross incomes are strongly related to many of the variables available to construct synthetic workforces.
Goals Goals
Estimate how many employers have a majority of Estimate how many employers have a majority of workers who are income-eligible for ACA-related workers who are income-eligible for ACA-related coverage.coverage.
Within predominantly subsidy-eligible firms, examine Within predominantly subsidy-eligible firms, examine the degree of variation in workers’ incomes.the degree of variation in workers’ incomes.
Examine issues related to the affordability of Examine issues related to the affordability of insurance.insurance.
Stratify Analysis by Firm-SizeStratify Analysis by Firm-Size
Large firms (50+ full-time workers)Large firms (50+ full-time workers)– Subject to fines if at least one full-time employee gets Subject to fines if at least one full-time employee gets
Small firms ( < 50 full-time workers) Small firms ( < 50 full-time workers) – No penalties for employees accessing Exchange coverageNo penalties for employees accessing Exchange coverage
– Tax credits for some firms with < 25 workers (started in 2010)Tax credits for some firms with < 25 workers (started in 2010)
Distribution of establishments, Distribution of establishments, by workers' family income, 2010 by workers' family income, 2010
Small Firms Large Firms
Offering ESI Not Offering Offering ESI
Total estabs (millions) 1.9 2.4 1.5
Majority of workers with Percent of Establishments
MAGI > 400% FPL 52.8 23.4 40.5
MAGI < 400% FPL 47.2 76.6 59.5
MAGI 139 to 400% FPL 37.9 60.4 47.8
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from the Employer-Sim ModelEstimates are weighted by MEPS-IC establishment weights. We did not estimate standard errors for point estimates from our simulation model.
Percent of workers within-establishment by income (MAGI as percentage of FPL)
≤138% 139- 250% 251-400% >400%
Majority of workers with: Small firms
MAGI > 400% FPL 1.9 10.3 20.5 67.3
MAGI < 400% FPL 7.2 25.8 32.0 35.0
MAGI 139-400% FPL 6.9 27.1 33.4 32.6
Majority of workers with: Large firms
MAGI > 400% FPL 2.0 10.8 21.7 65.5
MAGI < 400% FPL 9.1 28.3 28.9 33.7
MAGI 139-400% FPL 8.8 29.9 29.9 31.4
Distribution of incomes for full-time, eligible Distribution of incomes for full-time, eligible workers in establishments that offer ESI, 2010workers in establishments that offer ESI, 2010
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from the Employer-Sim ModelEstimates are weighted by MEPS-IC establishment weights. We did not estimate standard errors for point estimates from our simulation model.
Affordability of InsuranceAffordability of Insurance
ACA definition of affordability: ACA definition of affordability: – OOP premium for single coverage < 9.5% of MAGIOOP premium for single coverage < 9.5% of MAGI
Our definition of affordable dependent coverageOur definition of affordable dependent coverage– Dependent coverage if offeredDependent coverage if offered
– OOP premium for dependent coverage < 9.5% of MAGI OOP premium for dependent coverage < 9.5% of MAGI
Use the Employer-Sim Model to examine affordability.Use the Employer-Sim Model to examine affordability.– Re-weight the data to produce worker-level estimates Re-weight the data to produce worker-level estimates
– Focus on workers with MAGI between 139-400% FPL Focus on workers with MAGI between 139-400% FPL Potentially eligible for subsidized Exchange coverage.Potentially eligible for subsidized Exchange coverage.
For full-time workers with MAGI 139-400% FPL, who For full-time workers with MAGI 139-400% FPL, who are offered insurance, we examine the percent of are offered insurance, we examine the percent of workers with:workers with:– Affordable single coverage (legal ACA definition)Affordable single coverage (legal ACA definition)
– ‘‘Affordable’ dependent coverage from own employer Affordable’ dependent coverage from own employer
Examine options for workers with “unaffordable” Examine options for workers with “unaffordable” dependent coverage:dependent coverage:– Spousal offer of ESISpousal offer of ESI
– Children eligible for public coverage with premiumChildren eligible for public coverage with premium
Affordability of Dependent CoverageAffordability of Dependent Coverage
Determine needed coverage for each family member:Determine needed coverage for each family member:– Assume persons ≤138% FPL, children with free public coverage, and Assume persons ≤138% FPL, children with free public coverage, and
persons with Medicare or Tricare do not need ESIpersons with Medicare or Tricare do not need ESI
– Others are assumed to need ESI provided by the worker Others are assumed to need ESI provided by the worker
Count the number of persons in workers’ health insurance Count the number of persons in workers’ health insurance eligibility unit (HIEU) who need ESI:eligibility unit (HIEU) who need ESI:– Caveat: MEPS HIEU definition does not account for new ACA rules for Caveat: MEPS HIEU definition does not account for new ACA rules for
dependents up to age 26dependents up to age 26
Calculate OOP premium, from own employer, to cover all who Calculate OOP premium, from own employer, to cover all who need ESI.need ESI.
Determine whether OOP premium < 9.5% of MAGI.Determine whether OOP premium < 9.5% of MAGI.
Distribution of OOP Premiums: Workers Distribution of OOP Premiums: Workers with MAGI 139%-400% FPL, 2010with MAGI 139%-400% FPL, 2010
Full-time, eligible workers with dependents
Percentile of the OOP premium distribution
Mean 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th
Single coverage
Small firms 984 0 0 600 1,500 2,500 5,900
Large firms 804 0 300 700 1,100 1,600 3,500
Dependent coverage**
Small firms 3,833 0 0 3,100 6,200 9,100 11,200
Large firms 3,322 800 1,700 2,800 4,300 6,500 8,200
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from the Employer-Sim ModelEstimates are weighted by MEPS-IC worker-level weights. We did not estimate standard errors for point estimates from our simulation model. **Premiums for dependent coverage are conditional on an offer of dependent coverage.
Affordability of Single ESI: Workers with Affordability of Single ESI: Workers with MAGI 139%-400% FPL, 2010MAGI 139%-400% FPL, 2010
Full-time, eligible workers with no dependents
Within-establishment distribution of family income
All estabs Majority 139-400%
All estabs
Majority 139-
400%
Small firms Large firms
Total workers (millions) 2.7 1.5 10.4 5.2
Average family income 30,998 30,182 30,427 28,744
Lowest OOP single premium
1,002 1,095 815 858
% lacking affordable single coverage
8.8 10.7 3.0 3.9
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from the Employer-Sim ModelEstimates are weighted by MEPS-IC worker-level weights. We did not estimate standard errors for point estimates from our simulation model.
Affordability of Single ESI: Workers with Affordability of Single ESI: Workers with MAGI 139%-400% FPL, 2010MAGI 139%-400% FPL, 2010
Full-time, eligible workers with dependents
Within-establishment distribution of family income
All workers
Majority 139-400%
All workers
Majority 139-400%
Small firms Large firms
Total workers (millions) 3.2 1.5 12.1 5.5
Average family income 52,971 51,002 52,798 50,564
Lowest OOP single premium
984 1,111 804 853
% lacking affordable single coverage
2.5 3.0 0.7 0.9
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from the Employer-Sim ModelEstimates are weighted by MEPS-IC worker-level weights. We did not estimate standard errors for point estimates from our simulation model.
Affordability of Dependent ESI: Workers Affordability of Dependent ESI: Workers with MAGI 139%-400% FPL, 2010with MAGI 139%-400% FPL, 2010
Full-time, eligible workers with dependents
Within-establishment distribution of family income
All workers Majority 139-400%
All workers
Majority 139-400%
Small firms Large firms
Percent of workers
Lacking affordable dependent coverage
41.4 42.0 16.6 19.4
Not offered dependent coverage
7.8 8.2 0.4 0.7
Offered but not affordable
33.6 33.8 16.2 18.7
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from the Employer-Sim ModelEstimates are weighted by MEPS-IC worker-level weights. We did not estimate standard errors for point estimates from our simulation model.
Alternative sources of dependent coverage: Alternative sources of dependent coverage: WWorkers with MAGI 139%-400% FPL, 2010orkers with MAGI 139%-400% FPL, 2010
Full-time, eligible workers in small firms with dependents who lack affordable dependent coverage
Within-establishment distribution of family income
All workers Majority 139-400%
All workers
Majority 139-400%
Dependent Cov. Offered Dep. Cov. Not Offered
Percent of workers
Spouse offer** 31.4 33.3 35.0 38.3
Children eligible 32.2 33.9 25.6 26.7
No spouse offer or eligible children
46.6 39.6 45.0 41.1
Source: Authors’ calculations using data from the Employer-Sim ModelEstimates are weighted by MEPS-IC worker-level weights. We did not estimate standard errors for point estimates from our simulation model. **Workers may have both a spousal offer and eligible children, so percentages do not sum to 100%.
LimitationsLimitations
We do not calculate standard errors (SEs).We do not calculate standard errors (SEs).
Appropriate SEs must account for multiple sources of variance:Appropriate SEs must account for multiple sources of variance:
– Matching of MEPS-HC workers to MEPS-IC establishmentsMatching of MEPS-HC workers to MEPS-IC establishments
– Using samples of MEPS-HC workers to estimate summary Using samples of MEPS-HC workers to estimate summary statistics for each establishmentstatistics for each establishment
– Sampling variation in the MEPS-ICSampling variation in the MEPS-IC
Relative standard errors (RSEs) for our point estimates are likely to Relative standard errors (RSEs) for our point estimates are likely to be large. be large.
Additional sources of error are attributable to the HC-IC linkage Additional sources of error are attributable to the HC-IC linkage process.process.
SummarySummary
ACA-related incentives raise important considerations for private ACA-related incentives raise important considerations for private employers regarding the provision of ESI.employers regarding the provision of ESI.– Many establishments have a majority of workers who are income-Many establishments have a majority of workers who are income-
eligible for Medicaid or Exchange coverage.eligible for Medicaid or Exchange coverage.
Within-firm heterogeneity in workers’ incomes complicates Within-firm heterogeneity in workers’ incomes complicates employers’ decisions.employers’ decisions.
Most workers with MAGI 139-400% FPL have access to affordable Most workers with MAGI 139-400% FPL have access to affordable single coverage single coverage – We estimate that about 750,000 workers lacked affordable single We estimate that about 750,000 workers lacked affordable single
coverage in 2010.coverage in 2010.
For those with lack of access to ‘affordable’ dependent coverageFor those with lack of access to ‘affordable’ dependent coverage– Nearly half lacked an alternative source of dependent coverage.Nearly half lacked an alternative source of dependent coverage.
Further WorkFurther Work
Evaluate the affordability of dependent coverage using all Evaluate the affordability of dependent coverage using all available sources:available sources:
– Worker’s ESIWorker’s ESI
– Spouse’s ESISpouse’s ESI
– Children’s eligibility for public insuranceChildren’s eligibility for public insurance
Evaluate workers’ net benefits of Exchange coverage by Evaluate workers’ net benefits of Exchange coverage by comparing costs of moving to the Exchange with the costs of the comparing costs of moving to the Exchange with the costs of the most affordable alternative. most affordable alternative.
Examine the within-establishment concentration of workers who Examine the within-establishment concentration of workers who would benefit from Exchange coverage.would benefit from Exchange coverage.