Literature DB >> 11921314

How profitable is risk selection? A comparison of four risk adjustment models.

Yujing Shen1, Randall P Ellis.   

Abstract

To mitigate selection triggered by capitation payments, risk-adjustment models bring capitation payments closer on average to individuals' expected expenditure. We examine the maximum potential profit that plans could hypothetically gain by using their own private information to select low-cost enrollees when payments are made using four commonly used risk adjustment models. Simulations using a privately insured sample suggest that risk selection profits remain substantial. The magnitude of potential profit varies according to the risk adjustment model and the private information plans can employ to identify profitable enrollees. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11921314     DOI: 10.1002/hec.661

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  13 in total

1.  The risk-adjusted vision beyond casemix (DRG) funding in Australia. International lessons in high complexity and capitation.

Authors:  Kathryn M Antioch; Michael K Walsh
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-06

2.  Fixing flaws in Medicare drug coverage that prompt insurers to avoid low-income patients.

Authors:  John Hsu; Vicki Fung; Jie Huang; Mary Price; Richard Brand; Rita Hui; Bruce Fireman; William H Dow; John Bertko; Joseph P Newhouse
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  The effect of complementary and alternative medicine claims on risk adjustment.

Authors:  Bonnie K Lind; Chad Abrams; William E Lafferty; Paula K Diehr; David E Grembowski
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  The performance of administrative and self-reported measures for risk adjustment of Veterans Affairs expenditures.

Authors:  Matthew L Maciejewski; Chuan-Fen Liu; Ann Derleth; Mary McDonell; Steve Anderson; Stephan D Fihn
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Do insurers respond to risk adjustment? A long-term, nationwide analysis from Switzerland.

Authors:  Viktor von Wyl; Konstantin Beck
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-02-08

6.  Distributing $800 billion: an early assessment of Medicare Part D risk adjustment.

Authors:  John Hsu; Jie Huang; Vicki Fung; Mary Price; Richard Brand; Rita Hui; Bruce Fireman; William Dow; John Bertko; Joseph P Newhouse
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Adaptive capacity of the Adjusted Clinical Groups Case-Mix System to the cost of primary healthcare in Catalonia (Spain): a observational study.

Authors:  Antoni Sicras-Mainar; Soledad Velasco-Velasco; Ruth Navarro-Artieda; Alexandra Prados-Torres; Buenaventura Bolibar-Ribas; Concepción Violan-Fors
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  An in-depth assessment of a diagnosis-based risk adjustment model based on national health insurance claims: the application of the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group case-mix system in Taiwan.

Authors:  Hsien-Yen Chang; Jonathan P Weiner
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  Risk selection, risk adjustment and choice: concepts and lessons from the Americas.

Authors:  Randall P Ellis; Juan Gabriel Fernandez
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2013-10-25       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  How can the regulator show evidence of (no) risk selection in health insurance markets? Conceptual framework and empirical evidence.

Authors:  Wynand P M M van de Ven; René C J A van Vliet; Richard C van Kleef
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-02-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.