Risk selection and the specification of the conventional risk adjustment formula

Risk selection and the specification of the conventional risk adjustment formula We argue that a sharp distinction must be made between the empirical problem of finding the best equation for explaining medical expenditures and the normative question of deriving capitations which give health plans the appropriate incentives. We propose a procedure, taken from the social choice literature, to go from the estimated equations to the capitations. If the estimated equations are not additively separable in legitimate and illegitimate risk-adjusters, it is impossible to remove all incentives for risk selection while respecting at the same time a straightforward requirement of horizontal equity. This has immediate implications for the choice of the functional form. Moreover, in so far as the conventional risk adjustment literature only includes so-called “legitimate” risk-adjusters in the estimations, its results may suffer from omitted variables-bias. We illustrate our general methodological points with empirical results, obtained from a cross-section of 321,111 Belgian patients. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Health Economics Elsevier

Risk selection and the specification of the conventional risk adjustment formula

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/risk-selection-and-the-specification-of-the-conventional-risk-P0RESrQT2a
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Elsevier B.V.
ISSN
0167-6296
eISSN
1879-1646
D.O.I.
10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00040-7
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We argue that a sharp distinction must be made between the empirical problem of finding the best equation for explaining medical expenditures and the normative question of deriving capitations which give health plans the appropriate incentives. We propose a procedure, taken from the social choice literature, to go from the estimated equations to the capitations. If the estimated equations are not additively separable in legitimate and illegitimate risk-adjusters, it is impossible to remove all incentives for risk selection while respecting at the same time a straightforward requirement of horizontal equity. This has immediate implications for the choice of the functional form. Moreover, in so far as the conventional risk adjustment literature only includes so-called “legitimate” risk-adjusters in the estimations, its results may suffer from omitted variables-bias. We illustrate our general methodological points with empirical results, obtained from a cross-section of 321,111 Belgian patients.

Journal

Journal of Health EconomicsElsevier

Published: Nov 1, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off