You may have already heard quite a lot about consequences of the Massachusetts’ health reform. But, have you seen it all in charts? Now you can, in my new post 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 Massachusetts health reform experience, in three charts
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 dennis byron on April 11th, 2013 at 20:54
In the referenced blog post you say that in Massachusetts
“…coverage increased across all categories including employer-sponsored coverage. Employers were more likely to offer coverage after reform than before. Under reform, employers are more likely to offer health insurance coverage to their workers, with the share of employers offering coverage up from 70% in 2005 to 77% in 2010.”
Although the last two sentences are apparently true (more employers were offering insurance supposedly to avoid the penalty), take up rates were down significantly according to Figure 5 of what I believe to be the most recent Health Insurance Survey report released by the State of Massachusetts (released in January 2013 but covering 2006-2011), ESI is down from a high of 67% to just under 62% of Massachusetts’ population. Perhaps you have newer data
by GME on April 12th, 2013 at 12:34
The implementation of Commonwealth Care for <300% FPL is a step in the right direction, reducing OOP costs for lower income groups. Provision of first dollar coverage (without a deductible) and lower maximum copays(and services) on prescription drugs are much better than the ACA.
The cost per capita appears to be ~ $4300. Much better than under the ACA, due to management and cost-reduction savings.
I can't comment on the quality of care of the Commonwealth Care providers, however I will presume that it is good.
This is in a sense a public option with cost controls which the ACA does not have and is open to a much broader income range than the ACA.
The data you present is lumped, so it is hard to say what the actual subgroups pay as a portion of income and thus it is improper to compare directly for this reason as well.
The ACA requires much more contribution and is adjustable based on the insurers meeting their AV. The problem that many in the top 10% don't understand is that thousands of dollars for OOP costs in the low income bracket is untenable and that which cannot be paid won't be paid.
As for Gruber, I talked with him at a Bear Stearns conference prior to their demise. He reminded me of Robert McNamara, attempting to calculate just how much war the U.S. could afford.
How much more can lower income groups spend on healthcare, nothing. Unless the healthcare strategy is to get more obesity, diabetes and cardiac disease by encouraging substitution of calories with even more cheap soda, candy bars and fast food. But chained-CPI is yet another topic, for another blog.