Setting and Valuing Health Insurance Benefits

Setting and Valuing Health Insurance Benefits

Setting and Valuing Health Insurance Benefits
Chris L. Peterson
Specialist in Health Care Financing
April 6, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40491
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

Setting and Valuing Health Insurance Benefits

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Actuarial Value Versus Premium ................................................................................................. 1
Key Differences .................................................................................................................... 1
Individual Experience in Actuarially Equivalent Plans........................................................... 3
Illustrative Benefit Packages and Values...................................................................................... 3

Tables
Table 1. Illustrative Benefit Packages and Estimated Actuarial Values, 2007................................ 4

Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 5
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... 5

Congressional Research Service

Setting and Valuing Health Insurance Benefits

Introduction
This report briefly describes some of the key concepts and policy issues around specifying and
valuing health insurance benefits.
“Actuarial value” is a summary measure of a health insurance plan’s benefit generosity. It is
expressed as the percentage of medical expenses estimated to be paid by the insurer for a standard
population and set of allowed charges. An actuarial value may also be referred to as a “benefit
rate.” One purpose of an actuarial value is to distill all the benefit and enrollee cost-sharing
provisions of a health insurance plan into a single number, for easier comparisons among plans.
For example, under Massachusetts’ health reform, individuals purchasing unsubsidized coverage
through the Connector1 have the choice of three benefit levels: Gold, Silver and Bronze.2 A Gold
benefit package must be actuarially equivalent3 to the Gold package specified by the Connector,
with low copayments and no deductible. The Gold benefit package has an estimated actuarial
value of 93%.4 The Silver benefit package that an insurer develops can have greater cost-sharing
(e.g., a deductible, higher copayments) but must have an actuarial value between 67% and 81%.
The Bronze package must have an actuarial value of roughly 56%.5
Actuarial Value Versus Premium
Key Differences
Actuarial values attempt to make benefit package comparisons “apples to apples” by using a
standard population and standard assumptions. However, many factors besides benefit generosity
affect actual premiums. Actuarial values do not generally take into account many of the factors
that can have large impacts on premiums, such as the health of the people actually enrolled in the
plan, the varying prices paid by plans for medical goods and services, the breadth of the provider
network, the provisions regarding how out-of-network care is paid for (or not), and the use of
tools by the plan to reduce health care utilization (e.g., prior authorization for certain tests). Thus,
differences between plans’ actuarial values may not correspond with their premium differences.6

1 The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, created by Massachusetts’ 2006 health reform legislation,
is the “independent state agency that helps Massachusetts residents find health insurance coverage and avoid tax
penalties” that they would pay if they did not obtain “affordable” coverage, if available. The Connector’s selection of
plans is divided into two categories: Commonwealth Care, which consists of plans providing subsidized coverage for
those with family income below 300% of poverty; and Commonwealth Choice, consisting of plans for individuals not
receiving subsidies for coverage. For more information, see http://www.mahealthconnector.org.
2 In addition, adults age 18-26 have access to another benefit package, the Young Adult Plans (YAP), which can
exclude prescription drugs and have annual limits on payments by the plan for an individual as low as $50,000.
3 Within 5% of the actuarial value of the package specified by the Connector, according to “Request for Responses:
Health Benefit Plans,” Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, December 6, 2006, p. 11.
4 Jon Kingsdale, Executive Director, Commonwealth Connector, March 26, 2009.
5 Silver and Bronze values based on Gold actuarial value and the relative values between the benefit packages cited in
“Request for Responses: Health Benefit Plans,” Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, December 6,
2006. Silver is to be 72.5% to 87.5% of the Gold benefit value; Bronze is to be 60% of Gold.
6 For an example, see Roland McDevitt, “Actuarial Value: A Method for Comparing Health Plan Benefits,” Watson
Wyatt Worldwide for the California HealthCare Foundation, available at
http://www.chcf.org/topics/healthinsurance/index.cfm?itemID=133789.
Congressional Research Service
1

Setting and Valuing Health Insurance Benefits

A classic illustration is when comparing the actuarial values and the premiums of a Health
Maintenance Organization (HMO) versus a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO). When using
in-network providers, cost-sharing for HMOs is relatively low and generally not subject to
deductibles. On the other hand, PPOs usually have a general annual deductible and higher out-of-
pocket cost-sharing for in-network care. Analyses by Roland McDevitt of Watson Wyatt
Worldwide, whose analyses of actuarial values are used in the remainder of this report unless
otherwise noted, show that the actuarial value of a typical HMO (assuming only in-network
usage) is approximately 93%. The actuarial value of the typical PPO ranges from 80% to 84%.7
Although the in-network benefit value of a typical HMO plan is greater than a typical PPO plan,
69% of covered employees in 2008 were enrolled in a PPO, and 23% were enrolled in an HMO.8
This suggests that many individuals prefer the more flexible PPO structure even if its in-network
actuarial value is lower than the typical HMO plan.9
In addition, because benefit values are calculated as a percentage of allowed medical expenses, or
“claims,” they exclude the impact of administrative expenses, another factor that affects
premiums. One analysis,10 prepared under contract by the Small Business Administration (SBA)
Office of Advocacy, found that insurers’ administrative expenses for health insurance sponsored
by small employers—“small group coverage”— amounted to 33%-37% of claims; for large
companies’ self-insured plans,11 administrative expenses amounted to 5%-11% of claims. For
small group coverage, the cost of commissions were found to make up 4%-11% of premiums,
taxes and fees 2-3%, general expenses 10%-11%, and profits 4%-5% of premiums.
Assume a large employer and a small employer offer a plan with the exact same benefit
package—and therefore of the same actuarial value. If average annual health care claims in both
firms was $5,000, the impact of administrative expenses could cause the actual premium for the
large firm to be $5,250-$5,550 (5%-11% additionally for administrative expenses), while the
small firm’s could be $6,650-$6,850 (33%-37% additionally for administrative expenses), based
on the numbers from the SBA study. As a result, legislative proposals that limit certain tax
advantages based on premium amounts rather than benefit values, for example, could have a
disparate impact on those with coverage in smaller firms, in high-cost areas, and/or with enrollees
who are sicker than average.

7 Based loosely on 2007 characteristics in employer-sponsored health insurance plans, as described in “Employer
Health Benefits: 2007 Annual Survey,” Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust
(KFF/HRET). The Watson Wyatt valuation estimates here assume in-network use only by the adult population covered
by employer-sponsored coverage as its standardized population, a common practice. The variation in actuarial values
for PPO plans reflects some of the variation in benefit packages by firm size, as noted in the 2007 KFF/HRET report.
8 “Mercer’s National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans 2008,” Mercer presentation, Washington, DC,
February 18, 2009.
9 If one incorporated certain assumptions for out-of-network care for both an HMO and PPO plan, the actuarial values
may be more similar. However, those assumptions can then be the key driver of the benefit value differences. Thus, in
this report, actuarial values reflect only in-network usage.
10 Rose C. Chu and Gordon R. Trapnell, “Study of the Administrative Costs and Actuarial Values of Small Health
Plans,” U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, Small Business Research Summary No. 224,
January 2003, available at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs224.pdf.
11 Many large employers opt to “self-insure,” which means the employer bears the risk (and benefits) of its workers’
health care claims. Self-insured employers use health insurers for administrative purposes (e.g., using the insurer’s
negotiated payment rates, paying claims). Self-insured firms are not subject to state health insurance laws, including
premium taxes charged in some states.
Congressional Research Service
2

Setting and Valuing Health Insurance Benefits

Individual Experience in Actuarially Equivalent Plans
Two plans’ benefit packages—that is, the benefits covered and the cost-sharing for those
benefits—are actuarially equivalent if the percentage of medical expenses paid by the plan for a
given population would be approximately the same. However, two plans can be actuarially
equivalent while the details of their covered benefits and cost-sharing can be very different. In
addition, although the percentage paid by the plan overall may be similar between the two plans,
an individual’s experience in each plan could differ substantially.
For example, consider two actuarially equivalent plans. Plan A has a $400 deductible, after which
20% coinsurance is charged, with an out-of-pocket maximum of $5,000. Plan B has a deductible
of $2,500, after which the plan pays 100% (out-of-pocket maximum of $2,500). Both have an
actuarial value of 80%; that is, if a standardized population of adults enrolled in job-based
coverage had this benefit package, both plans would be expected to pay 80% of the medical
expenses incurred for that population.
Now consider the experience of two individuals—one who has total medical expenses of $2,500
for a broken leg, compared to one who has $25,000 for outpatient cancer treatments. For the
person with the broken leg, Plan A would pay a higher percentage than Plan B—67% rather than
0%. For the cancer patient, however, Plan A would pay a lower percentage than Plan B—80%
rather than 90%.
Thus, while the actuarial value reflects the overall percentage of medical expenses paid by the
plan for a given population, it is not necessarily indicative of what will be paid on behalf of a
particular individual. People with a choice of actuarially equivalent plans must still determine
which benefit package would be best for them individually, also taking into account the premiums
and the other characteristics that affect premiums (as previously discussed, breadth of provider
networks, etc.).
The only way to guarantee that individuals’ cost-sharing is equivalent between plans is if the
plans are identical in the benefits covered and the cost-sharing permitted for each covered benefit.
However, this requires the body governing plans to specify the benefit package without variation.
While this may make it easier for enrollees to compare plans and their premiums, it would limit
plans’ ability to design benefit package that some individuals might prefer or that might be used
to encourage more appropriate use of health care, for example.
Illustrative Benefit Packages and Values
Table 1 describes certain illustrative benefit packages and, using the benefit valuation model at
Watson Wyatt Worldwide, estimated actuarial values for those benefit packages—again, using a
standardized population of adults12 enrolled in job-based coverage that use only in-network
providers receiving standardized payment rates. Although actuarial values necessarily provide
different information than premiums, these actuarial values are useful for analyzing differences
between insurance products based solely on their benefit and cost-sharing design.

12 It should be noted that the illustration in Table 1 includes the Medicaid benefit available to children. Covered
benefits for adults in Medicaid are generally not as comprehensive. However, the Medicaid children’s benefit package
is used because it provides a real-world example of a 100% actuarial value.
Congressional Research Service
3

Setting and Valuing Health Insurance Benefits

Table 1. Illustrative Benefit Packages and Estimated Actuarial Values, 2007
Illustrative Benefit
Summary of Illustrative Benefit Package (Certain
Package
Covered Benefits and Enrollee Cost-Sharing)
Estimated Actuarial Value
Traditional Medicaid
Federal Medicaid statute requires that covered children
100%
for children
have access to any “necessary” health servicea without
any cost-sharingb
Typical employer-
No deductible. $20 copays for office visits. $250
93%
sponsored Health
inpatient hospitalization copay. No cost-sharing for lab
Maintenance
or x-ray. Three tiers of copayments for prescription
Organization (HMO)
drugs ($10 for generic, $25 for brand-name drugs on the
plan’s formulary, $45 for brand-name drugs not on the
formulary).
FEHBPc Blue Cross-
$250 annual deductible. $15 copays for office visits.
87%
Blue Shield Standard
$100 inpatient hospitalization copay plus 10%
Option (Preferred
coinsurance. 10% coinsurance for lab and x-ray. 25%
Provider Organization, coinsurance for prescription drugs. $4,000 overall out-
PPO)
of-pocket maximum.
Typical employer-
$700/$400 annual deductible. 20% coinsurance for office
80%-84%
sponsored PPO
visits, inpatient hospitalization, lab and x-ray. Three tiers
(small/large firmsd)
of copayments for prescription drugs ($10, $25, $45).
$3,500/$2,000 overal out-of-pocket maximum.
Typical employer-
$1,500 annual deductible. 20% coinsurance for office
76% excluding contribution by
sponsored Health
visits, inpatient hospitalization, lab, x-ray, and
employer to HSA
Savings Account
prescription drugs. $3,000 overall out-of-pocket
(HSA)-qualified high-
maximum.
93% including employer HSA
deductible health plan
contribution of $750 in
(HDHP)
actuarial value
Medicare Parts A, B
$100 annual deductible then 20% coinsurance for office
76%
and D
visits. $893 inpatient hospitalization copay. 20%
coinsurance for lab and x-ray. For prescription drugs, a
$265 deductible, followed by 25% coinsurance until total
allowed charges total $2,400, after which the member
pays 100% coinsurance until total allowed charges reach
$5,451, after which the member pays 5% coinsurance.
No overal out-of-pocket maximum.
Source: Watson Wyatt Worldwide and Congressional Research Service (CRS) analyses. Estimated actuarial
values provided by Roland McDevitt, director, Health Research, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, using a standard
population of adults enrolled in job-based health insurance using only in-network/preferred providers.
Note: Actuarial value here is defined as the percentage of health care expenses paid by the plan. It measures
benefit generosity using a standard population and standard prices for items and services. As discussed in the
text of this report, actuarial values may be a poor predictor of actual premiums in a particular plan. Actuarial
values do not take into account such factors as the health of the people actual y enrol ed in the plan, the prices
paid by the plan for medical goods and services, and the breadth of the provider network. For example, although
Medicaid for children covers all health care services with no cost-sharing (hence the 100% actuarial value), there
are questions about the adequacy of provider payments and provider networks for Medicaid enrollees—issues
not captured in an actuarial value.
a. Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment Services (EPSDT) in Medicaid, Sec. 1905(r) of the
Social Security Act.
b. 42 CFR 447.53(b)(1) states that children “are excluded from cost-sharing.”
c. Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
d. Watson Wyatt defines smal firms here as those with 3-199 workers.
Congressional Research Service
4

Setting and Valuing Health Insurance Benefits

Author Contact Information

Chris L. Peterson

Specialist in Health Care Financing
cpeterson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4681

Acknowledgments
Roland McDevitt, director, Health Research, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, contributed to this report.

Congressional Research Service
5