We all want it, but we don't know what it is: toward a standard of affordability for health insurance premiums

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148), or ACA, requires that U.S. citizens either purchase health insurance or pay a fine. To offset the financial burden for lower-income households, it also provides subsidies to ensure that health insurance premiums are affordable. However, relatively little work has been done on how such affordability standards should be set. The existing literature on affordability is not grounded in social norms and has methodological and theoretical flaws. To address these issues, we developed a series of hypothetical vignettes in which individual and household sociodemographic characteristics were varied. We then convened a panel of eighteen experts with extensive experience in affordability standards to evaluate the extent to which each vignette character could afford to pay for one of two health insurance plans. The panel varied with respect to political ideology and discipline. We find that there was considerable disagreement about how affordability is defined. There was also disagreement about what might be included in an affordability standard, with substantive debate surrounding whether savings, debt, education, or single parenthood is relevant. There was also substantial variation in experts' assessed affordability scores. Nevertheless, median expert affordability assessments were not far from those of ACA.     

Empire and the business of health insurance.

I examine the development of privately provided insurance since World War II, giving special attention to Empire Blue Cross, and argue that the competition between employers and unions for the loyalty of workers after the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act helped diffuse private health insurance benefits already favored by federal policies. For-profit insurers did not challenge the privileged status of Blue Cross plans because they recognized the political benefits that the plans offered and because they did not wish to offend the plans' sponsors. A relatively easy and profitable business, health insurance has been greatly disturbed by the system inflation accompanying the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid programs. Now self-insurance and various managed-care schemes are major threats. The future may bring consolidation and the strengthening of pools, just the opposite of today's system fragmentation.     

Occupational health ethics: OSHA and the courts

Recent court decisions have stressed the necessity for cost-benefit analysis in evaluating Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA) standards, thus raising difficult ethical questions which this paper analyzes using classical approaches of deontology and teleology. Since both modes of analysis have deficiencies, the need for a synthesis using economic and noneconomic measures is suggested.     

The skeptic's guide to a movement for universal health insurance

The social movement has become institutionalized as a form of political action. The aim of this article is to evaluate the possibilities presented by this form as a strategy to bring about universal health insurance in the United States. I draw on the work of social movement theorists, on the substantial body of empirical research on health-related social movements, and on relevant comparative work from Canada to develop a template for this evaluation. Using that template I compare the failed campaign for President Bill Clinton's health insurance plan with a recent, more successful campaign in the state of New York. I conclude that the keys to success are, first, a broad-based coalition that combines an ideologically and/or grievance-motivated grass roots with financially and politically well-endowed mainstream organizations; second, a "master frame" that resonates with the American people; and, third, a political window of opportunity. The prospects for such a conjunction are not hopeless, but they are not high.