Research by Author & Topic

Publications by John Holahan on Uninsured/Uncompensated Care

This paper used the Health Insurance Policy Simulation Model to examine the impact on insurance coverage in government, employer, and family spending in all 50 states in absence of reform. In all states employer sponsored insurance would fall, and Medicaid enrollment and the number of uninsured would increase. Employer spending would increase despite drops in coverage. Government spending for public health insurance programs and for financing of uncompensated care would increase. The results differ among states depending on the distribution of employees by firm size and wage levels, the breadth of coverage in public programs and projected population growth.

Emotions are flaring as constituents speak their minds to members of Congress home for August recess. That's to be expected, since health care is both a personal and public issue, but let's not forget to debate the basics:

Under contract to the State of New York, researchers conducted in-depth micro-simulation analyses of four types of health care reforms being considered for state implementation: a single payer public health insurance option, Assembly Member Gottfried's New York Health Plus proposal that provides an option for all New Yorkers to enroll in Family Health plus, public-private hybrid options that simplify and expand existing public programs and reform private health insurance, and a market-based option that relies on regulatory flexibility and tax credits. The cost and coverage implications of state reform options falling into these four categories are presented in this report.

Recently, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the Senate Finance Committee's health reform plan would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years. The estimate left many in Washington and around the country with sticker shock. Authors Linda Blumberg and John Holahan place the estimate in context by showing that the costs of health reform are less than 1 percent of estimated GDP and a small fraction of expected health care spending for that period as well. They also contend that the costs associated with inaction are at least as big as those of directly addressing the problems we currently face.

The testimony begins by mentioning a large number of positive aspects of the legislation. The role and importance of an individual mandate is then briefly discussed. It argues that the public plan that is proposed in the plan is important for overall cost containment and for budget savings. The plan would address problems in the current market that are caused by increasing concentration in insurance and hospital markets. Further it is argued that it is in fact possible to structure a fair competition between public and private health insurance plans. Finally, the testimony makes recommendations for the financing of the Medicaid expansion and for modifying the employer mandate proposal.

This report uses the Health Insurance Policy Simulation Model (HIPSM) to quantify the intermediate and longer-term implications if America’s health care system is not significantly overhauled. Under a range of economic scenarios, the analysis shows an increasing strain on business owners and their employees over the next decade if reform is not enacted. There would be a dramatic decline in the number of people insured through employers, and millions more could become uninsured. There would be large growth in Medicaid/CHIP enrollment and spending, and increased spending on uncompensated health care. Middle-income working families would be the most affected.

Senator Barack Obama, along with others, has proposed developing a public plan that would compete with private insurers within an organized health insurance marketplace. The argument is that a public plan would have lower administrative costs and more ability to control provider payment rates. This paper assesses these arguments concluding that there would be administrative cost savings and lower provider payment rates but not as much as is often asserted. Strong private insurers that offer good value for premiums charged would survive. But most important, the amount of real competition in both insurance and hospital markets would be enhanced.

Health Policy Center Director John Holahan answers five questions about health care reform.

President Obama has called health care reform his top fiscal priority and aims to rein in escalating medical costs while extending health insurance coverage. Massachusetts’s 2006 reforms could provide a model for the nation. Holahan and coauthor Linda Blumberg analyze the state’s progress to date in “Massachusetts Health Reform: Solving the Long-Run Cost Problem.”

Many of Massachusetts's health reforms have brought about positive change: the number of uninsured has fallen by half, access to needed care has increased, and private insurance has not been "crowded out" by public insurance programs. But the Massachusetts initiative has also seen higher than anticipated costs. In a new analysis, John Holahan and Linda Blumberg summarize the state's accomplishments, examine the challenges, and suggest four options for addressing long-term costs. According to the authors, much of Massachusetts's high spending growth is due to the concentration in the state's hospital and insurance markets.

Recent congressional proposals and reforms advocated by the presidential candidates have renewed the debate about whether the problem of the uninsured is best addressed through subsidies to employers or to individuals. In this brief, the authors argue that it is more efficient to provide subsidies directly to individuals and families than to employers. Individual subsidies will lead to less displacement of private spending and will be more equitable. Employers have limited information about their workers, making employer subsidies more difficult to target to individuals with the greatest needs. In addition, employer subsidies do not eliminate the need for individual subsidies.