Law Commons^™

Can Moral Framing Drive Insurance Enrollment In The Us?, Christopher Robertson, Wendy Netter Epstein, David Yokum, Hansoo Ko, Kevin Wilson, Monica Ramos, Katherine Kettering, Margaret Houtz

Faculty Scholarship

To encourage health insurance uptake, marketers and policymakers have focused on consumers’ economic self-interest, attempting to show that insurance is a good deal or to sweeten the deal, with subsidies or penalties. Still, some consumers see insurance as a bad deal, either because they rationally exploit private risk information (“adverse selection”), or irrationally misperceive the value due to cognitive biases (e.g., optimism). As a result, about 30 million Americans remain uninsured, including many who could afford it.

At the same time, polling suggests that Americans view health insurance through a moral lens, seeking to protect those with pre-existing conditions especially. …

Addressing Stigma And False Beliefs About Mental Health: A New Direction For Mental Health Parity Advocacy, Claire Sontheimer, Michael Ulrich

Faculty Scholarship

Despite laws designed to protect mental health and substance use parity in the United States, real parity remains an aspiration. Under the current system, insurance companies use multiple tactics to deny coverage for or delay the provision of mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) treatment. The difficulty of enforcing parity creates a barrier to achieving the goal of accessible behavioral health services. Rather than a continued effort to legislate our way out of this conundrum, it may be useful to look further upstream. Critical impediments to achieving such parity include the basic attitudes and beliefs about mental and behavioral …

Distinguishing Moral Hazard From Access For High-Cost Healthcare Under Insurance, Christopher Robertson, Andy Yuan, Wendan Zhang, Keith Joiner

Faculty Scholarship

Health policy has long been preoccupied with the problem that health insurance stimulates spending (“moral hazard”). However, much health spending is costly healthcare that uninsured individuals could not otherwise access. Field studies comparing those with more or less insurance cannot disaggregate moral hazard versus access. Moreover, studies of patients consuming routine low-dollar healthcare are not informative for the high-dollar healthcare that drives most of aggregate healthcare spending in the United States.

We test indemnities as an alternative theory-driven counterfactual. Such conditional cash transfers would maintain an opportunity cost for patients, unlike standard insurance, but also guarantee access to the care. …

Big Waiver Under Statutory Sabotage, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

The Affordable Care Act's State Innovation waiver allows federal agencies to suspend the most controversial parts of the statute for states to pursue alternative paths, while keeping the federal funding provided by the statute. This "big waiver" provision has the potential to enable states to pursue transformative health reforms, while preserving the affordability and universal coverage aims of the federal statute. Big waivers like this one carry theoretical promise, which largely depends on the strength of the federal statute's baseline infrastructure. This Essay considers early implementation of the State Innovation waiver as a test for big waiver theory - and …

Ideology Meets Reality: What Works And What Doesn't In Patient Exposure To Health Care Costs, Christopher Robertson, Victor Laurion

Faculty Scholarship

U.S. policymakers, scholars, and advocates have long displayed an ideological commitment to exposing insured patients to substantial out-of-pocket expenses. These commitments derive from both overt political ideologies, which favor individual responsibility and oppose redistribution of wealth and risks, as well as more-subtle ideological commitments of academic economists, which link observed patterns of consumption to value-claims about welfare. In this symposium contribution, we document those ideological commitments and juxtapose them with a review of the scientific evidence about the actual effects of patient cost-sharing. We find, as economic theory predicts, that patients exposed to healthcare costs consume less healthcare. However, a …

Health Care And The Myth Of Self-Reliance, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Both pillars of the Affordable Care Act that are designed to facilitate universal coverage — the low-income tax subsidy and Medicaid expansion — have been subject to high-profile Supreme Court cases. While in King v. Burwell the Court saved the ACA’s low-income subsidy, in NFIB v. Sebelius the Court frustrated Medicaid expansion, at least temporarily. We argue that there is a deeper story about health care access for the poor. Drawing from the history of the American health care system, vulnerability theory, and demographic data, we demonstrate that all Americans lead subsidized lives and could find themselves quickly moving from …

After Tackett: Incomplete Contracts For Post-Employment Healthcare, Maria O'Brien

Faculty Scholarship

This paper examines the recent U.S. Supreme Court retiree health care decision in Tackett v. M & G Polymers and focuses, in particular, on the ostensibly odd silence with respect to a critical contract term — whether the parties in fact agreed that these benefits were vested. Although the union in Tackett insisted these welfare benefits were clearly intended to vest and the employer now asserts they can be modified at any time, the collective bargaining agreement and supporting documents are ambiguous on this question. This paper examines how and why this “silence” persisted for so many decades and concludes …

Should Patient Responsibility For Costs Change The Doctor-Patient Relationship?, Christopher Robertson

Faculty Scholarship

Copays, deductibles, coinsurance, and reference prices all now expose patients to increasingly larger shares of the costs of health care. Extant research on cost sharing has primarily focused on its impact on patients, their health care spending, and their health outcomes. Scholars have paid much less attention to the question of how patient exposure to health care costs may impact physicians and their relationships with their patients. This Essay is given on the occasion of a symposium motivated by two recent books by David Schenck, Larry Churchill, and Joseph Fanning that highlight the relational aspects of health care ethics. Accordingly, …

Allocating Responsibility For Health Care Decisions Under The United States Affordable Care Act, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

This article summarizes the major elements of the ACA's insurance reforms and how they affect responsibility for making decisions about the health care that people receive. A key example of the difficulty of allocating decision making responsibility is the effort to define a minimum benefit package for insurance plans, called essential health benefits. While the ACA should achieve its goal of near-universal access to care, it leaves in place a multiplicity of processes and decision-makers for determining individual treatment. As a result, decisions about what care is provided are likely to remain, much as they are today, divided among government …

The Burden Of Deciding For Yourself: The Disutility Caused By Out-Of-Pocket Healthcare Spending, Christopher Robertson, David Yokum

Faculty Scholarship

As part of a larger "consumer-directed healthcare movement," cost-sharing mechanisms, such as copays and deductibles, cause patients to pay out of pocket for a portion of the costs of the healthcare they consume. Cost sharing is intended to reduce costs by changing consumption behavior, and it has been shown to be an effective though incomplete solution to the problem of unsustainable cost growth. It is controversial nonetheless. This Essay distinguishes three different normative problems with cost sharing (including underinsurance, deterrence of high-value care, and a tax on sickness), which can all be fixed through more precision in the design of …

Health Insurance Is Dead; Long Live Health Insurance, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

Today, health insurance is no longer simply a class of insurance that covers risks to health, and it has not been so for many years. Health insurance has become a unique form of insurance — a mechanism to pay for healthcare that uses risk spreading as one of several pricing methods. The Affordable Care Act builds on this important payment function to create a complex social insurance system to finance healthcare for (almost) everyone. This article examines how the ACA draws on various conceptions of insurance to produce a quasi-social insurance system. This system poses new challenges to laws governing …

The Affordable Care Act And Health Promotion: The Role Of Insurance In Defining Responsibility For Health Risks And Costs, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines whether insurance is an appropriate mechanism for improving individual health or reducing the cost of health care for payers. The Affordable Care Act contains implicit standards for allocating responsibility for health, especially in provisions encouraging health promotion and wellness programs. A summary of the accumulating evidence of the effects of such programs suggests that wellness programs have been somewhat more effective in making people feel better than in reducing costs. Health promotion should be encouraged, because health is valuable for its own sake. Insurance is not well suited to improve health or manage behavioral risks to health; …

Health Reform: What's Insurance Got To Do With It? Recognizing Health Insurance As A Separate Species Of Insurance, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

Health insurance can be, and to a large extent already is, a separate species of insurance. This article describes the different views of insurance that made health reform contentious. It argues that the goals of health reform are incompatible with conventional views of insurance. Nonetheless, reforming health insurance to achieve those goals does not require as dramatic shift as some might think, because health insurance has already become primarily a means of paying for health care, rather than a simple risk spreading device for specified losses.

The Supreme Court's Limitation Of Managed-Care Liability, Wendy K. Mariner

Faculty Scholarship

This article summarizes and critiques the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, which limited managed care organizations' liability for negligent decisions about the care of patients in private employer-sponsored health plans governed by ERISA. It contrasts the Court's dichotomous view of health benefit plans, in which insurers administer contracts and treating physicians make medical judgments, with the more complicated relationships that affect decisions about both coverage and treatment.

The Economics And Politics Of Emergency Health Care For The Poor: The Patient Dumping Dilemma, Maria O'Brien

Faculty Scholarship

As the numbers of uninsured mount⁴ because of job dislocations, exhaustion of benefits, and unaffordably high premiums, the incidence of "dumping" by private hospitals is, predictably, on the rise. Dumping occurs when a hospital, in violation of federal or state law, transfers an emergency patient to another (usually public) hospital or simply refuses any treatment based on the patient's inability to pay.5 In addition to the completely uninsured, favorite dumping targets include Medicare and Medicaid patients, AIDS patients, and cancer patients whose therapy may cost more than the maximum reimbursement under private insurance.

Dumping is merely a part of …