Market failure in long-term private health insurance markets: a proposed solution

Recently, private health insurance rates have declined in many countries. In places requiring community rating in their health insurance premiums, a major cause is age-based adverse selection. However, even in countries without community rating, a de facto type of partial community rating tends to occur. In this note, a modified version of Pauly et al.'s guaranteed renewability model, which addresses the problem of age-based adverse selection (Pauly et al., 1995) is presented. Their model is extended from three to 35 periods. Also, probabilities are allowed to increase by age for low-risk types using actual age-based probabilities. This extension of their work shows that private health insurance contracts available stray far from optimal contracts that deal with age-based adverse selection. This suggests that government actions to affect private insurance options are warranted.

Lifetime cover in private insurance markets

In the last few decades, private health insurance rates have declined in many countries. In countries and states with community rating, a major cause is adverse selection. In order to address age-based adverse selection, Australia has recently begun a novel approach which imposes stiff penalties for buying private insurance later in life, when expected costs are higher. In this paper, we analyze Australiarsquos Lifetime Cover in the context of a modified version of the Rothschild-Stiglitz insurance model (Rothschild and Stiglitz, 1976). We allow empirically-based probabilities to increase by age for low-risk types. The model highlights the shortcomings of the Australian plan. Based on empirically-based probabilities of illness, we predict that Lifetime Cover will not arrest adverse selection. The model has many policy implications for government regulation encouraging long-term health coverage.

Lifetime Subsidies in Australian Private Health Insurance Markets with Community Rating

This paper considers the problem of inducing low-risk individuals of all ages to buy private health insurance in Australia. Our proposed subsidy scheme improves upon the age-based penalty scheme under the current "Australian Lifetime Cover" (LTC) scheme. We generate an alternative subsidy profile that obviates adverse selection in private health insurance markets with mandated, age-based, community rating. Our proposal is novel in that we generate subsidies that are both risk- and age-specific, based upon actual risk probabilities. The approach we take may prove useful in other jurisdictions where the extant law mandates community rating in private health insurance markets. Furthermore, our approach is useful in jurisdictions that seek to maintain private insurance to complement existing universal public systems.

Conditional release: A less restrictive alternative to hospitalization?

Objective: This study examined conditional release - that is, involuntary outpatient commitment orders upon release from hospitalization - as a least restrictive alternative to psychiatric hospitalization in Victoria, Australia. Methods: Records were obtained from the Victorian Psychiatric Case Register for patients who experienced psychiatric hospitalization: between 1990 and 2000 a total of 8,879 patients were given conditional release and 16,094 were not. Results: Compared with the group that was hospitalized but did not receive a conditional release, the group that received a conditional release was more likely to have more prior hospitalizations of greater than average duration. Patients with schizophrenia were more likely to be given conditional release. Patients given conditional release experienced a care pattern involving briefer inpatient episodes (8.3 fewer days per episode), more inpatient days, and longer duration of restrictive care - that is, combined inpatient and conditional release periods (5.1 more days per month in care). Conclusions: For patients at risk of long-term hospitalization, conditional release may help to shorten inpatient episodes by providing a least restrictive alternative to continued hospitalization. However, patients who were given conditional release doubled the amount of days they spent under restrictive care, compared with the amount of time they previously spent in the hospital before entering a period of combined inpatient and conditional release commitment. Additional oversight may have led to more frequent hospitalization. This consequence raises new questions regarding the possible benefits of such extended oversight and new challenges for release planning using conditional release as a least restrictive method of care.

Effect of conditional release from hospitalization on mortality risk

Objectives: This study considered the protective value provided by conditional release. It assessed the contribution of conditional release to mortality risk among patients with mental disorders severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization during a mental health treatment span of 13.5 years in Victoria, Australia. Methods: Death records were obtained from the Australian National Death Index for a sample of 24,973 Victorian Psychiatric Case Register patients with a history of psychiatric hospitalizations: 8,879 had experienced at least one conditional release during community care intervals and 16,094 had not. Risk of death was assessed with standardized mortality ratios of the general population of Victoria. Relative risk of death among patients with and without past experience of conditional release was computed with risk and odds ratios. The contribution of conditional release to mortality, taking into account use of community care services, age, gender, inpatient experience, and diagnosis, as well as other controls, was assessed with logistic regression. Results: Patients who had been hospitalized showed higher mortality risk than the general population. Sixteen percent ( 4,034) died. Patients exposed to conditional release, however, had a 14 percent reduction in probability of noninjury-related death and a 24 percent reduction per day on orders in the probability of death from injury compared with those not offered such oversight throughout their mental health treatment, all other factors taken into account. Conclusions: Conditional release can offer protective oversight for those considered dangerous to self or others and appears to reduce mortality risk among those with disorders severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization.

Factors in the selection of patients for conditional release from their first psychiatric hospitalization

Objective: This study examined a sample of patients in Victoria, Australia, to identify factors in selection for conditional release from an initial hospitalization that occurred within 30 days of entry into the mental health system. Methods: Data were from the Victorian Psychiatric Case Register. All patients first hospitalized and conditionally released between 1990 and 2000 were identified (N = 8,879), and three comparison groups were created. Two groups were hospitalized within 30 days of entering the system: those who were given conditional release and those who were not. A third group was conditionally released from a hospitalization that occurred after or extended beyond 30 days after system entry. Logistic regression identified characteristics that distinguished the first group. Ordinary least-squares regression was used to evaluate the contribution of conditional release early in treatment to reducing inpatient episodes, inpatient days, days per episode, and inpatient days per 30 days in the system. Results: Conditional release early in treatment was used for 11 percent of the sample, or more than a third of those who were eligible for this intervention. Factors significantly associated with selection for early conditional release were those related to a better prognosis ( initial hospitalization at a later age and having greater than an 11th grade education), a lower likelihood of a diagnosis of dementia or schizophrenia, involuntary status at first inpatient admission, and greater community involvement ( being employed and being married). When the analyses controlled for these factors, use of conditional release early in treatment was significantly associated with a reduction in use of subsequent inpatient care.