Skip to main content
Log in

Risk Selection in the Massachusetts State Employee Health Insurance Program

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using the Diagnostic Cost Group (DCG) model developed from a national sample, we examine biased selection among one fee-for-service (FFS) plan, one preferred provider organization, and several health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in Massachusetts. The proportions of enrollees in low-risk groups are higher in the HMO plans and lower in the FFS plan. The average age in the FFS plan is 9 years greater than that in the HMO plans. Actual premiums are not consistent with risk levels among HMO plans, resulting in gains in some HMO plans and losses in others as high as 20% compared to expected expenses as computed by the DCG model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R.S. Brown, D.G. Clement, J.W. Hill, S.M. Retchin and J.W. Bergeron, Do health maintenance organizations work for Medicare, Health Care Financing Review 15 (1993) 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J.P. Newhouse, Reimbursing health plans and health providers: selection versus efficiency in production, Journal of Economic Literature 34 (1996) 1236–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. Altman, D.M. Cutler and R.J. Zeckhauser, Adverse selection and adverse retention, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 88 (May 1998) 122–126.

  4. J.P. Newhouse, M. Beeuwkes Buntin and J.D. Chapman, Risk adjustment and Medicare: taking a closer look, Health Affairs 16 (1997) 26–43.

    Google Scholar 

  5. N. Rice and P.C. Smith, Capitation and risk adjustment in health care, Health Care Management Science 3 (2000) 73–75.

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Peocock and L. Segal, Capitation funding in Australia: imperatives and impediments, Health Care Management Science 3 (2000) 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  7. K. Beck, Growing importance of capitation in Switzerland, Health Care Management Science 3 (2000) 111–119.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A.S. Ash, R.P. Ellis, G.C. Pope, J.Z. Ayanian, D.W. Bates, H. Burstin, L.I. Iezzoni, E. MacKay and W. Yu, Using diagnoses to describe populations and predict costs, Health Care Financing Review 21(3) (Spring, 2000) 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R.P. Ellis, G.C. Pope, L.I. Iezzoni et al., Diagnosis-based risk adjustment for Medicare capitation payments, Health Care Financing Review 17 (1996) 101–128.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. Ash, F. Porell, L. Gruenberg et al., Adjusting Medicare capitation payments using prior hospitalization data, Health Care Financing Review 10 (1989) 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R.P. Ellis, Employee choice of health insurance, Review of Economics and Statistics 71 (1989) 215–223.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R.P. Ellis and A. Ash, Refinements to the diagnostic cost group (DCG) model, Inquiry 32 (1995) 418–429.

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Ash, R.P. Ellis, W. Yu et al., Risk Adjustment for the Non-Elderly, Research Report prepared for Health Care Financing Administration (June 1998).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yu, W., Ellis, R.P. & Ash, A. Risk Selection in the Massachusetts State Employee Health Insurance Program. Health Care Management Science 4, 281–287 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011842327930

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011842327930

Keywords

Navigation