If you think the purpose of the individual mandate is to avert a death spiral by addressing health-based selection into the insurance pool, I would agree with you. But, it turns out, there’s another economics argument. Read about it on the LDI site.
Masthead
Editors in Chief
Austin Frakt
Aaron Carroll
Managing Editor
Adrianna McIntyre
Contributors
Kevin Outterson
Bill Gardner
Nicholas Bagley
Other ContributorsRecent posts
- How Useful Are Temperature Screenings for Covid?
- Veterans Experience Differences Between VHA and Community Providers
- The Health Of The People Should Be The Supreme Law
- What Can Be Learned From Differing Rates of Suicide Among Groups
- At-Home Testing for Covid
- Bias In, Bias Out
- Come work with me (and colleagues you’ve read here)
- Covid Vaccine Facts with the WHO’s Dr. Kate O’Brien
- Nest Protect and the nuclear option
- Religion and COVID: at odds?
Archives
For speaking inquiries
Interested in having Aaron or Austin speak to your group?
For information on Aaron speaking, click here.
For information on Austin speaking, contact the Leigh Bureau.
Aaron’s stuff
Selected appearances:
The Colbert Report
Good Morning America
Sound Medicine (most recent)
The Ed ShowAustin’s stuff
Click here for links to Austin’s peer-reviewed publications and/or related posts.
The economics of community rating and the individual mandate
04/11/2013
Austin Frakt
item.php
Follow the blog
TIE Books
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Indiebound
iBooks
Google
Kobo
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Books-A-Million
iBooks
IndieBound
Powells
Buy at Amazon.com
Summary
Excerpt: Economic profit
Excerpt: Diminishing marginal utility
Excerpt: Four factors of production
Excerpt: Monopoly marginal revenue
Excerpt: Consumer/producer surplus
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Books-A-Million
Borders
IndieBound
Powells
Borders
Barnes & Noble
IndieBound
Amazon.com
Books-A-Million
Powells
Austin and Aaron are participants in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.Tag cloud
ACA AcademyHealth access accountable care organizations Affordable Care Act announcement blogging cancer comic competitive bidding costs cost shifting COVID-19 employer-sponsored health insurance health care costs Healthcare Triage health insurance health insurance mandates health reform hospital readmissions hospitals individual mandate insurance exchange market power Massachusetts Medicaid Medicare Medicare Advantage mortality nutrition obesity On The Record physicians politics PPACA premiums prescription drugs quality reading list reflex RWJF spending uninsured Upshot vaccines
by robert aylward on April 12th, 2013 at 11:28
I understand that Frakt chooses to comment on the system we have (age based community rating) not on the system we don’t have (pure community rating), but wouldn’t it be consistent, when commenting on the Dutch and Swiss experiences for him to point out that both have pure community rating. Frakt’s premise is that a modified age based community rating system such as ours (with a three to one limitation) discriminates against younger insureds. More is less, less is more. Any discrimination, whether by pre-existing conditions or by age, does not benefit those who are discriminated against. An honest comment would acknowledge the real premise, which is that pure community rating significantly increases the cost of the subsidies necessary to achieve universal insurance coverage, and the administration was willing to sacrifice pure community rating for what it considered the higher priority of universal insurance coverage. I’m sure the nearly old would appreciate a thank you for bearing a part of the cost of achieving the higher priority of universal insurance coverage.