Tag Archive: morale hazard

Morale hazard raised in debate on GOP debate on individual medical insurance

In 2013, I pointed out morale hazard as a major risk facing issuers of medical insurance. Morale hazard has now come up in the current debate among majority House Republicans on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s non-group medical insurance reforms. Here’s the context from a Yahoo News item:

Though the GOP leadership is insisting those with preexisting conditions will be covered under its bill, some individual lawmakers are telegraphing a different message. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., a member of the Freedom Caucus, told CNN Monday that the provision will allow those who have lived “good lives” to pay less for health care, by taking unhealthy people out of the insurance pool. “They’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy, and right now, those are the people who have done things the right way, who are seeing their costs skyrocketing,” Brooks said.

Morale hazard is tied to the perception that medical care and insurance are consumable commodities. The more they are used, the greater likelihood of good health the flawed reasoning goes. In fact for most people, these resources are – and should — be used as little as possible. Fortunately that’s the case according to a recent Health Affairs analysis that found most Americans use few health care resources and have low out-of-pocket spending. The outliers who use a lot of care are driving medical utilization.

Some policymakers such as Rep. Brooks argue their premium rates should be medically underwritten to ensure they are proportional to the risk they pose. Or excluded from the insurance pool and placed in high risk pools that violate the basic insurance principle of risk spreading. The challenge is how to identify and distinguish these folks from those who have congenital predispositions to chronic medical conditions whose risk to insurers is far less prone to morale hazard as well as those who engage in health promoting lifestyles that reduce their likelihood of needing medical care for chronic conditions. Some have suggested the rapid growth in genomics along with wearable biometric monitoring devices provides a possible solution. Time will tell.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Are state health benefit exchanges undergoing adverse selection?

A trend worth watching is health plan issuers opting not to sell individual plans on state health benefit exchanges while continuing to offer them outside the exchanges. Health plan issuers withdrawing from exchanges for plan year 2017 cite high losses on exchange plans for the decision to withdraw.

This naturally raises questions as to why losses are higher on exchange plans compared to off exchange plans and whether the exchanges are prone to adverse selection and if so, why. It’s an area ripe for research by health policy and actuarial research organizations. It’s also critical to the future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s health insurance market reforms given the central role of the exchanges to restore the individual market to functionality by making coverage affordable for low and moderate income households with advance premium tax credit and out of pocket cost subsidies. That combined with the law’s mandate the individuals be pooled into a single statewide risk pool were designed to improve the essential risk spreading function upon which all types of insurance is based. However, if the risk profile of exchange enrollees is inordinately poor compared to the individual state pool as a whole, it could explain why some health plan issuers have opted out of the exchanges.

One possible reason is the well-established positive correlation between socio-economic status and health status. Since the exchange population is by definition low and moderate income, that correlation could be a factor since the correlation predicts those with poorer health status are more likely to utilize medical services. Another possible contributing factor is an insurance concept known as morale hazard. Morale hazard arises when those with insurance coverage figure that since they are protected from loss, they don’t have to worry as much about a covered loss event or taking steps to prevent one. In other words, insurance can ironically increase the risk of loss because insureds become less vigilant to avoid one in the first place such as eliminating fire hazards in a dwelling or obeying traffic laws and driving carefully in the case of vehicle insurance.

The correlation between lower household socio-economic status and poorer health status may also reinforce morale hazard on the exchanges since those with the lowest incomes will have relatively minimal personal financial risk since they qualify for out of pocket cost sharing on some silver level plans.

When it comes to health, American society is fraught with morale hazard. It tends to place too little value on maintaining and supporting healthy lifestyles and regards medical services as a consumer commodity to be shopped and consumed. Particularly when someone else is paying for those services when packaged as a benefit or entitlement. That’s a formula for increased medical utilization with negative and potentially fatal implications not only for the exchanges, but for the nation’s health care system as a whole.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Morale hazard a major risk facing health plans

Insurance no matter what variety assumes two kinds of risk. First, the underlying peril that could result in a covered loss, such as a windstorm or a fire in the case of homeowners insurance. Second, human hazards that can increase the risk of loss. For example, there’s moral hazard (such as filing a fraudulent claim to collect on the insurance by setting one’s house on fire) and morale hazard. What’s morale hazard? This definition is a good one:

A term used to describe a subjective hazard that tends to increase the probable frequency or severity of loss due to an insured peril. Morale hazard, as contrasted with moral hazard, does not imply a propensity to cause a loss but implies a certain indifference to loss simply because of the existence of insurance. For example, an insured’s attitude may be indifferent if a loss occurs because they have insurance. (Emphasis added)

The emphasized part is directly applicable to and has major implications for health insurance. In the context of health insurance, a clear example of morale hazard would be the failure to engage in health promoting behaviors and lifestyles. For instance, an individual with a family history and propensity to develop cardiovascular disease eating an unhealthy diet and not regularly exercising. Granted, that individual may not want to have a stroke or heart attack. But if they have the attitude that they can shift the risk of costly medical care should that happen to their health plan, they may be less motivated to adopt a lifestyle to help head off those eventualities.

As one strategy to stem rising costs, health plans must strike a balance between providing people the peace of mind that comes with having coverage for potentially financially ruinous medical costs while also motivating those they cover to take responsibility to avoid them.

This becomes especially critical starting this October, when health plans in the individual market must begin pre-enrolling applicants for coverage beginning January 2014 regardless of medical condition or history. No longer will plans be able to practice risk avoidance to control claims costs, rejecting those deemed too risky to cover or charging small employers higher rates based on the medical condition of their employees.

That leaves mitigation of morale hazard as their only remaining form of risk management. Large employers as well as smaller ones are looking to so-called “workplace wellness” programs as a form of addressing morale hazard, including contingent wellness programs that provide employees economic incentive to engage in health promoting behaviors to reduce the likelihood of their incurring major medical costs. Whether such programs have a meaningful impact remains to be seen given mixed outcomes such as reflected in this 2011 survey and a study published this week in Health Affairs.

With limited financial incentives available to both plans and employers to reduce morale hazard, it will likely take a big shift in societal attitudes to achieve a measurable reduction. For example, viewing both personal health and health coverage as a common social good that should be respected and preserved. If the resources to pay for health care are shared and finite – and they are – we should regard them as a societal asset that should be preserved. That change in outlook will also require us to re-examine our values and strive for balance in our lives that supports preserving our individual and collective health.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

%d bloggers like this: