Article

Brief Report: Quantifying the Impact of Autism Coverage on Private Insurance Premiums

The Vista Foundation, Hershey, PA, USA.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (Impact Factor: 3.06). 03/2009; 39(6):953-7. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-009-0701-z
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Many states are considering legislation requiring private insurance companies to pay for autism-related services. Arguments against mandates include that they will result in higher premiums. Using Pennsylvania legislation as an example, which proposed covering services up to $36,000 per year for individuals less than 21 years of age, this paper estimates potential premium increases. The estimate relies on autism treated prevalence, the number of individuals insured by affected plans, mean annual autism expenditures, administrative costs, medical loss ratio, and total insurer revenue. Current treated prevalence and expenditures suggests that premium increases would approximate 1%, with a lower bound of 0.19% and an upper bound of 2.31%. Policy makers can use these results to assess the cost-effectiveness of similar legislation.

Full-text

Available from: David S Mandell, Feb 06, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
71 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper presents some missile attack angle control simulation studies. Both linear and adaptive control are considered using the partial state model reference adaptive control approach proposed in [1]. The main control problems are due to the unmeasured disturbances, unstable or undamped modes and important dynamics variations.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article examines how nations split decision-making about health services between federal and sub-federal levels, creating variation between states or provinces. When is this variation ethically acceptable? We identify three sources of ethical acceptability-procedural fairness, value pluralism, and substantive fairness-and examine these sources with respect to a case study: the fact that only 30 out of 51 US states or territories passed mandates requiring private insurers to offer extensive coverage of autism behavioral therapies, creating variation for privately insured children living in different US states. Is this variation ethically acceptable? To address this question, we need to analyze whether mandates go to more or less needy states and whether the mandates reflect value pluralism between states regarding government's role in health care. Using time-series logistic regressions and data from National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, Individual with Disabilities Education Act, legislature political composition, and American Board of Pediatrics workforce data, we find that the states in which mandates are passed are less needy than states in which mandates have not been passed, what we call a cumulative advantage outcome that increases between-state disparities rather than a compensatory outcome that decreases between-state disparities. Concluding, we discuss the implications of our analysis for broader discussions of variation in health services provision.
    Autism 04/2014; 18(7). DOI:10.1177/1362361314529191 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Frontiers in Public Health 09/2014; 2(160). DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00160