↓ Skip to main content

Out of Pocket Costs and Health Insurance Take-Up Rates

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Out of Pocket Costs and Health Insurance Take-Up Rates
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40258-018-0388-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vasilios D. Kosteas, Francesco Renna

Abstract

Over the first ten years of this century, the share of the US population covered by employer-sponsored health insurance plans experienced a significant decline. A decrease in the take-up rate accounts for about a quarter of this decline. Usually, the increasing share of the premium that is paid by workers is used to explain the decline in the take-up rate. However, in recent years the increase in copayments, deductible and coinsurance rate has far outpaced the increase in worker contribution. In this study we analyze the impact of out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, which consist of both workers' contribution toward the premium and expected expenditures, on the take-up rate for firms that offer multiple plan types. Using data from the Employer Health Benefits Survey we estimated a pooled ordinary least squares and a fixed effects model. Since we have information about different types of health insurance plans offered by the firm, we derive the cross-price elasticity of coverage. Our fixed effects estimations suggest that workers respond to an increase in the out-of-pocket contributions for Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) plans by switching to PPO plans without impacting the overall take-up rate, while workers respond to increases in the out-of-pocket contribution for Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) plans by switching to HMO plans or dropping out of the group coverage. In general, we found that the estimated elasticities are too small to explain the overall drop in take-up rates even in light of the large increases in required worker contributions and expected expenditures. Still, we highlight the growing importance of expected expenditures in explaining take-up rates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 18%
Student > Master 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Professor 1 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 27%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,601,965
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#616
of 785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,548
of 329,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#16
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.