Earlier this week, David Nather of POLITICO reported that health insurers are telling the Obama Administration that the penalty for not having coverage will not be sufficiently large to encourage enough healthy people to sign up. However, if the goal is to avoid a destabilizing level of adverse selection, the best evidence we have is that it may be, when fully phased in, just fine. My latest post on the JAMA Forum goes over some of that evidence.
- Affirmative action
- Aggregate supply
- Is medication nonadherence a medical condition?
- Levy and Meltzer on the impact of health insurance on health
- Compounding pharmacy bills
- Copayments are stupid, ctd.
- Should very young children be taking stimulants?
- GDP vs health care spending
- The medical device tax needs to stay
- More comparative effectiveness goodness
For speaking inquiries
Click here for a link to Austin's CV, as well as a complete list of his peer-reviewed publications with links to related posts and/or ungated versions (when available).
Is the mandate penalty large enough?January 17, 2013 at 12:55 pmAustin Frakt
Write a comment
Follow the blog
Tag cloudAcademyHealth accountable care organizations Affordable Care Act announcement antitrust blogging books comic competitive bidding costs cost shifting deficit employer-sponsored health insurance health care costs health insurance health insurance mandates health reform hospital readmissions hospitals instrumental variables insurance exchange market power Massachusetts Medicaid Medicare mortality obesity On The Record physicians politics PPACA premiums premium support prescription drugs prostate cancer quality reading list reflex RWJF single payer spending substance use tax uninsured xkcd