Explore the vast range of titles available.

The impact of insurer competition on welfare, negotiated provider prices, and premiums in the U.S. private health care industry is theoretically ambiguous. Reduced competition may increase the premiums charged by insurers and their payments made to hospitals. However, it may also strengthen insurers' bargaining leverage when negotiating with hospitals, thereby generating offsetting cost decreases. To understand and measure this trade-off, we estimate a model of employer-insurer and hospitalinsurer bargaining over premiums and reimbursements, household demand for insurance, and individual demand for hospitals using detailed California admissions, claims, and enrollment data. We simulate the removal of both large and small insurers from consumers' choice sets. Although consumer welfare decreases and premiums typically increase, we find that premiums can fall upon the removal of a small insurer if an employer imposes effective premium constraints through negotiations with the remaining insurers. We also document substantial heterogeneity in hospital price adjustments upon the removal of an insurer, with renegotiated price increases and decreases of as much as 10% across markets.

We compare health care spending in public and private Medicare using newly available claims data from Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers. MA insurer revenues are 30 percent higher than their health care spending. Adjusting for enrollee mix, health care spending per enrollee in MA is 9 to 30 percent lower than in Traditional Medicare (TM), depending on the way we define “comparable” enrollees. Spending differences primarily reflect differences in health care utilization, with similar reductions for “high-value” and “low-value” care, rather than health care prices. We present evidence consistent with MA plans encouraging substitution to less expensive care and engaging in utilization management.

We examine multigenerational impacts of positive in utero health interventions using a new research design that exploits sharp increases in prenatal Medicaid eligibility that occurred in some states. Our analyses are based on US Vital Statistics natality files, which enables linkages between individuals’ early life Medicaid exposure and the next generation’s health at birth. We find evidence that the health benefits associated with treated generations’ early life program exposure extend to later offspring. Our results suggest that the returns on early life health investments may be substantively underestimated.

We use administrative data from the Internal Revenue Service to examine long-term impacts of childhood Medicaid eligibility expansions on outcomes in adulthood at each age from 19 to 28. Greater Medicaid eligibility increases college enrolment and decreases fertility, especially through age 21. Starting at age 23, females have higher contemporaneous wage income, although male increases are imprecise. Together, both genders have lower mortality. These adults collect less from the earned income tax credit and pay more in taxes. Cumulatively from ages 19 to 28, at a 3% discount rate, the federal government recoups 58 cents of each dollar of its “investment” in childhood Medicaid.

We experimentally varied information mailed to 87,000 households in California’s health insurance marketplace to study the role of frictions in insurance take-up. Reminders about the enrollment deadline raised enrollment by 1.3 pp (16 percent) in this typically low take-up population. Heterogeneous effects of personalized subsidy information indicate misperceptions about program benefits. Consistent with an adverse selection model with frictional enrollment costs, the intervention lowered average spending risk by 5.1 percent, implying that marginal respondents were 37 percent less costly than inframarginal consumers. We observe the largest positive selection among low income consumers, who exhibit the largest frictions in enrollment. Finally, we estimate the implied value of the letter intervention to be $25 to $53 per month in subsidy dollars. These results suggest that frictions may partially explain low take-up for marketplace insurance, and that interventions reducing them can improve enrollment and market risk in exchanges.

We develop frameworks for welfare analysis of Medicaid and apply them to the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment. Across different approaches, we estimate low-income uninsured adults’ willingness to pay for Medicaid between $0.5 and $1.2 per dollar of the resource cost of providing Medicaid; estimates of the expected transfer Medicaid provides to recipients are relatively stable across approaches, but estimates of its additional value from risk protection are more variable. We also estimate that the resource cost of providing Medicaid to an additional recipient is only 40 percent of Medicaid’s total cost; 60 percent of Medicaid spending is a transfer to providers of uncompensated care for the low-income uninsured.

In this study, we evaluate how an expansion of Medicaid coverage for pregnant women and infants affected the adult outcomes of individuals who gained access to coverage in utero and during the first year of life. We find that cohorts whose mothers gained eligibility for prenatal coverage under Medicaid have lower rates of chronic conditions as adults and fewer hospitalizations related to diabetes and obesity. We also find that the expansions increased high school graduation rates. Our results indicate that expanding Medicaid prenatal coverage had long-term benefits for the next generation.

In 2008, a group of uninsured low-income adults in Oregon was selected by lottery to be given the chance to apply for Medicaid. This lottery provides an opportunity to gauge the effects of expanding access to public health insurance on the health care use, financial strain, and health of low-income adults using a randomized controlled design. In the year after random assignment, the treatment group selected by the lottery was about 25 percentage points more likely to have insurance than the control group that was not selected. We find that in this first year, the treatment group had substantively and statistically significantly higher health care utilization (including primary and preventive care as well as hospitalizations), lower out-of-pocket medical expenditures and medical debt (including fewer bills sent to collection), and better self-reported physical and mental health than the control group.

This paper provides new evidence that Medicaid’s introduction reduced infant and child mortality in the 1960s and 1970s. Mandated coverage of all cash welfare recipients induced substantial cross-state variation in the share of children immediately eligible for the program. Before Medicaid, higher- and lower-eligibility states had similar infant and child mortality trends. After Medicaid, public insurance utilization increased and mortality fellmore rapidly among children and infants in high-Medicaid-eligibility states. Mortality among nonwhite children on Medicaid fell by 20 percent, leading to a reduction in aggregate nonwhite child mortality rates of 11 percent.