Government initiatives to expand access to employer-based health insurance

Employer-based health insurance is declining at records rates, which leaves an increasing number of people without access to affordable health insurance. As a result, municipalities are experiencing financial difficulties to provide health care services for their growing uninsured population. In attempt to combat this issue, three health polices have emerged within the last ten years, called Living Wage with a health insurance provision, Pay or Play, and Health Care Preference. These policies are gaining popularity as civic leaders recognize their ability to promote a public health goal by leveraging the power of city and county contracts to include a health insurance component in the competitive bidding practice for government contracts. ^ This is the first paper to conduct a retrospective analysis on whether these three health policies have been able to increase access to employer-based health insurance and/or support the local health care safety net based on the experiences of six municipalities over a 5-year period from 2001-2006. Although there was variation between the effectiveness of the policies, all three demonstrated success in that a number of contractors extended existing health insurance to employees not previously covered and the increased cost of contracting for the local government was, on average, less than 1 percent of the total operating budget. ^

A model of factors determining levels of public support for health care policy in the United States

Public preferences for policy are formed in a little-understood process that is not adequately described by traditional economic theory of choice. In this paper I suggest that U.S. aggregate support for health reform can be modeled as tradeoffs among a small number of behavioral values and the stage of policy development. The theory underlying the model is based on Samuelson, et al.'s (1986) work and Wilke's (1991) elaboration of it as the Greed/Efficiency/Fairness (GEF) hypothesis of motivation in the management of resource dilemmas, and behavioral economics informed by Kahneman and Thaler's prospect theory. ^ The model developed in this paper employs ordered probit econometric techniques applied to data derived from U.S. polls taken from 1990 to mid-2003 that measured support for health reform proposals. Outcome data are four-tiered Likert counts; independent variables are dummies representing the presence or absence of operationalizations of each behavioral variable, along with an integer representing policy process stage. Marginal effects of each independent variable predict how support levels change on triggering that variable. Model estimation results indicate a vanishingly small likelihood that all coefficients are zero and all variables have signs expected from model theory. ^ Three hypotheses were tested: support will drain from health reform policy as it becomes increasingly well-articulated and approaches enactment; reforms appealing to fairness through universal health coverage will enjoy a higher degree of support than those targeted more narrowly; health reforms calling for government operation of the health finance system will achieve lower support than those that do not. Model results support the first and last hypotheses. Contrary to expectations, universal health care proposals did not provide incremental support beyond those targeted to “deserving” populations—children, elderly, working families. In addition, loss of autonomy (e.g. restrictions on choice of care giver) is found to be the “third rail” of health reform with significantly-reduced support. When applied to a hypothetical health reform in which an employer-mandated Medical Savings Account policy is the centerpiece, the model predicts support that may be insufficient to enactment. These results indicate that the method developed in the paper may prove valuable to health policy designers. ^

Lessons for emerging state Children's Health Insurance Premium Assistance programs: Case study of the Massachusetts Masshealth Family Assistance Program (MHFAP)

Providing health insurance coverage for vulnerable populations such as low-income high-risk children with limited access to health care is a challenge for many states. Over the past decade, higher private insurance premiums and unpredictable labor markets have increased the number of uninsured and underinsured children nationwide. Due to recent economic downfalls, many states such as Texas, have expressed interest in using premium assistance programs to increase enrollment of low income children and families in private coverage through employer sponsored health insurance. Massachusetts has been especially successful in reducing the number of uninsured children through the implementation of MassHealth Family Assistance Program (MHFAP), an employer based premium assistance program. The purpose of this study is to identify key implementation factors of a fully established premium assistance program which may provide lessons and facilitate implementation of emerging premium assistance programs. ^ The case study of the fully established MassHealth Family Assistance Program (MHFAP) has illustrated the ability of states to expand their Medicaid and SCHIP programs in order to provide affordable health coverage to uninsured and underinsured low income children and their families. As demonstrated by MHFAP, the success of a premium assistance program depends on four key factors: (1) determination of participant and employer eligibility; (2) determination of employer benefits meeting benchmark equivalency (Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Program); (3) the use of appropriate marketing and outreach strategies; and (4) establishment of adequate monitoring and reporting techniques. Successful implementation strategies, revealed by the case study of the Massachusetts MassHealth Family Assistance Program, may be used by emerging premium assistance programs, such as Texas Children's Health Insurance Premium Assistance Program (CHIP-PA) toward establishment of an effective, efficient, and equitable employer sponsored health program.^

An epidemiologic evaluation of a worksite based intervention

The healthcare industry spends billions on worker injury and employee turnover. Hospitals and healthcare settings have one of the highest rates of lost days due to injuries. The occupational hazards for healthcare workers can be classified into biological, chemical, ergonomic, physical, organizational, and psychosocial. Therefore, interventions addressing a range of occupational health risks are needed to prevent injuries and reduce turnover and reduce costs. ^ The Sacred Vocation Program (SVP) seeks to change the content of work, i.e., the meaningfulness of work, to improve work environments. The SVP intervenes at both the individual and organizational level. First the SVP attempts to connect healthcare workers with meaning from their work through a series of 5 self-discovery group sessions. In a sixth session the graduates take an oath recommitting them to do their work as a vocation. Once motivated to connect with meaning in their work, a representative employee group meets in a second set of five meetings. This representative group suggests organizational changes to create a culture that supports employees in their calling. The employees present their plan in the twelfth session to management beginning a new phase in the existing dialogue between employees and management. ^ The SVP was implemented in a large Dallas hospital (almost 1000 licensed beds). The Baylor University Medical Center (BUMC) Pastoral Care department invited front-line caregivers (primarily Patient Care Assistants, PCAs, or Patient Care Technicians, PCTs) to participate in the SVP. Participants completed SVP questionnaires at the beginning and following SVP implementation. Following implementation, employer records were collected on injury, absence and turnover to further evaluate the program's effectiveness on metrics that are meaningful to managers in assessing organizational performance. This provided an opportunity to perform an epidemiological evaluation of the intervention using the two sources of information: employee self-reports and employer administrative data. ^ The ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the SVP on program outcomes could be limited by the strength of the measures used. An ordinal CFA performed on baseline SVP questionnaire measurements examined the construct validity and reliability of the SVP scales. Scales whose item-factor structure was confirmed in ordinal CFA were evaluated for their psychometric properties (i.e., reliability, mean, ceiling and floor effects). CFA supported the construct validity of six of the proposed scales: blocks to spirituality, meaning at work, work satisfaction, affective commitment, collaborative communication, and MHI-5. Five of the six scales confirmed had acceptable measures of reliability (all but MHI-5 had α>0.7). All six scales had a high percentage (>30%) of the scores at the ceiling. These findings supported the use of these items in the evaluation of change although strong ceiling effects may hinder discerning change. ^ Next, the confirmed SVP scales were used to evaluate whether the intervention improved program constructs. To evaluate the SVP a one group pretest-posttest design compared participants’ self-reports before and after the intervention. It was hypothesized that measurements of reduced blocks to spirituality (α = 0.76), meaning at work (α = 0.86), collaborative communication (α = 0.67) and SVP job tasks (α = 0.97) would improve following SVP implementation. The SVP job tasks scale was included even though it was not included in the ordinal CFA analysis due to a limited sample and high inter-item correlation. Changes in scaled measurements were assessed using multilevel linear regression methods. All post-intervention measurements increased (increases <0.28 points) but only reduced blocks to spirituality was statistically significant (0.22 points on a scale from 1 to 7, p < 0.05) after adjustment for covariates. Intensity of the intervention (stratifying on high participation units) strengthened effects; but were not statistically significant. The findings provide preliminary support for the hypothesis that meaning in work can be improved and, importantly, lend greater credence to any observed improvements in the outcomes. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)^

A systematic review of organizational workplace wellness programs and their financial and nonfinancial incentives

Workplace wellness programs have revealed immense beneficial results for both the employer and employee. Examples of results include decrease in absenteeism, turnover rate, medical claims and increases in employee satisfaction, productivity, and return on investment. However, the approach taken when implementing requires greater attention since such programs and the financial and/or non-financial incentives chosen have shown to significantly impact employee participation thus the amount of savings the organization experiences. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the overall effectiveness of workplace wellness programs on employee health status and lifestyle change, recognize the majority types of returns observed by such programs, and identify whether financial or non-financial incentives created a greater effect on the employee. Overall employee health status improvement occurred when participating in wellness programs. The dominant indirect benefit for the organization was employee weight loss leading to a decrease in absenteeism and direct benefits included decreases in medical claims and increases in return on investment. In general, factors such as rate of participation and health status changes were most influenced when a financial incentives was provided in the wellness program. The basis of providing a program with effective incentives resides from efforts made by the employer and their efforts to play a role on every level of the organization regarding planning, implementing, and strategizing the most optimal approach for creating changes for the employees' wellbeing and productivity, thus the organizations overall returns.^

Evaluating the Harris County TexHealth 3-Share Plan: An exploratory study

An important health issue in the United States today is the large number of people who have problems accessing needed health care because they lack health insurance coverage. Providing health insurance coverage for the working uninsured is a particularly significant challenge in Texas, which has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation. In response to the low rate of employer-sponsored coverage in the Houston area and the growing numbers of uninsured, the Harris County Health Care Alliance (HCHA) developed and implemented the Harris County 3-Share Plan. A 3-Share Plan is not insurance, but provides health coverage in the form of a benefits package to employers who subscribe to the program and offer it to their employees. ^ A cross sectional study design was conducted to describe 3-Share employer and employee participants and evaluate their outcomes after its first year of operation. Between September and December 2011, 85% of employers enrolled in the 3-Share Plan completed a survey about the affordability of the 3-Share Plan, their satisfaction with the Plan, and the Plan's impact on employee recruitment, retention, productivity, and absenteeism. Forty-five percent of employees enrolled in the 3-Share Plan responded to a survey asking about the affordability of the 3-Share plan, accessibility of health care, availability of providers on the plan, health plan availability, utilization of primary care providers and the ER, and satisfaction with the plan. ^ A summary of the findings shows employers and employees say that they joined the plan because of the low-cost, and once they had participated in the Plan, the majority of employers and employees found that it is affordable for them. The majority of employees say they are getting access easily and without delay, but for those who aren't able to get access, or are delayed, the main cause is related to non-financial barriers to care. Ultimately, employees are satisfied with the 3-Share, and they plan to continue with health coverage under the 3-Share Plan. The 3-Share Plan will keep people in a system of care, and promote health, which will benefit the individuals, the businesses and the community of Harris County.^

Evaluating the Harris County TexHealth 3-Share plan: An exploratory study

An important health issue in the United States today is the large number of people who have problems accessing needed health care because they lack health insurance coverage. Providing health insurance coverage for the working uninsured is a particularly significant challenge in Texas, which has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation. In response to the low rate of employer-sponsored coverage in the Houston area and the growing numbers of uninsured, the Harris County Health Care Alliance (HCHA) developed and implemented the Harris County 3-Share Plan. A 3-Share Plan is not insurance, but provides health coverage in the form of a benefits package to employers who subscribe to the program and offer it to their employees. ^ A cross sectional study design was conducted to describe 3-Share employer and employee participants and evaluate their outcomes after its first year of operation. Between September and December 2011, 85% of employers enrolled in the 3-Share Plan completed a survey about the affordability of the 3-Share Plan, their satisfaction with the Plan, and the Plan's impact on employee recruitment, retention, and productivity. Forty-five percent of employees enrolled in the 3-Share Plan responded to a survey asking about the affordability of the 3-Share plan, accessibility of providers on the plan, satisfaction, and utilization of primary care providers and the ER. ^ A summary of the findings shows employers and employees say that they joined the plan because of the low-cost, and once they had participated in the Plan, the majority of employers and employees found that it is affordable for them. The majority of employees say they are getting access easily and without delay, but for those who aren't able to get access, or are delayed, the main cause is related to non-financial barriers to care. Ultimately, employees are satisfied with the 3-Share, and they plan to continue with health coverage under the 3-Share Plan. The 3-Share Plan will keep people in a system of care, and promote health, which will benefit the individuals, the businesses and the community of Harris County.^

The cost of insuring the uninsured in the U.S.

Objectives: This study included two overarching objectives. Through a systematic review of the literature published between 1990 and 2012, the first objective aimed to assess whether insuring the uninsured would result in higher costs compared to insuring the currently insured. Studies that quantified the actual costs associated with insuring the uninsured in the U.S. were included. Based upon 2009 data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), the second objective aimed to assess and compare the self-reported health of populations with four different insurance statuses. The second part of this study involved a secondary data analysis of both currently insured and currently uninsured individuals who participated in the MEPS in 2009. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences across the four categories of health insurance status for self-reported health status and healthcare service use. The alternative hypothesis was that were differences across the four categories of health insurance status for self-reported health status and healthcare service use. Methods: For the systematic review, three databases were searched using search terms to identify studies that actually quantified the cost of insuring the uninsured. Thirteen studies were selected, discussed, and summarized in tables. For the secondary data analysis of MEPS data, this study compared four categories of health insurance status: (1) currently uninsured persons who will become eligible for Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) healthcare reforms in 2014; (2) currently uninsured persons who will be required to buy private insurance through the PPACA health insurance exchanges in 2014; (3) persons currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP; and (4) persons currently insured with private insurance. The four categories were compared on the basis of demographic information, health status information, and health conditions with relatively high prevalence. Chi-square tests were run to determine if there were differences between the four groups in regard to health insurance status and health status. With some exceptions, the two currently insured groups had worse self-reported health status compared to the two currently uninsured groups. Results: The thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review included: (1) three cost studies from 1993, 1995, and 1997; (2) four cost studies from 2001, 2003, and 2004; (3) one study of disabilities and one study of immigrants; (4) two state specific studies of uninsured status; and (5) two current studies of healthcare reform. Of the thirteen studies reviewed, four directly addressed the study question about whether insuring the uninsured was more or less expensive than insuring the currently insured. All four of the studies provided support for the study finding that the cost of insuring the uninsured would generally not be higher than insuring those already insured. One study indicated that the cost of insuring the uninsured would be less expensive than insuring the population currently covered by Medicaid, but more expensive to insure than the populations of those covered by employer-sponsored insurance and non-group private insurance. While the nine other studies included in the systematic review discussed the costs associated with insuring the uninsured population, they did not directly compare the costs of insuring the uninsured population with the costs associated with insuring the currently insured population. For the MEPS secondary data analysis, the results of the chi-square tests indicated that there were differences in the distribution of disease status by health insurance status. As anticipated, with some exceptions, the uninsured reported lower rates of disease and healthcare service use. However, for the variable attention deficit disorder, the uninsured reported higher disease rates than the two insured groups. Additionally, for the variables high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and joint pain, the currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP group reported a lower rate of disease than the two currently insured groups. This result may be due to the lower mean age of the currently insured under Medicaid or SCHIP group. Conclusion: Based on this study, with some exceptions, the costs for insuring the uninsured should not exceed healthcare-related costs for insuring the currently uninsured. The results of the systematic review indicated that the U.S. is already paying some of the costs associated with insuring the uninsured. PPACA will expand health insurance coverage to millions of Americans who are currently uninsured, as the individual mandate and insurance market reforms will require. Because many of the currently uninsured are relatively healthy young persons, the costs associated with expanding insurance coverage to the uninsured are anticipated to be relatively modest. However, for the purposes of construing these results, it is important to note that once individuals obtain insurance, it is anticipated that they will use more healthcare services, which will increase costs. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)^