|
|
Pub Date: |
2001-06-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Child Health; Federal Programs; Health Insurance; Insurance Companies; Private Sector
Abstract:
Prior to the enactment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), policymakers examined the need to safeguard the private insurance market from "crowd out," the substitution of public health insurance coverage for private health insurance coverage. This qualitative study examined how 18 states are addressing crowd out, the degree to which state officials perceive crowd out to be occurring, and the implications of crowd-out prevention strategies on enrollment. Data were collected through site visits and telephone interviews with a broad range of key informants in the 18 states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin). Findings indicate that 17 states adopted policies to address crowd out. Seven types of crowd-out strategies were identified: (1) waiting periods; (2) monitoring/application questions regarding children's health insurance status; (3) verifying insurance status against databases of private coverage; (4) cost sharing; (5) subsidizing employer-based coverage; and (6) imposing obligations on employers or insurers. SCHIP and Medicaid officials, as well as other key informants, consistently reported little to no concern over crowd out. However, the pressures to increase enrollment have begun to outweigh concerns about crowd out at the state and local levels. It was concluded that although it is difficult to predict the direction that SCHIP will take, clearly the issues surrounding crowd out will continue to influence the discussion, particularly as the program reaches higher income families. (Two appendices delineate the types of policies to deter crowd out in 50 states and the District of Columbia, and list key SCHIP and Medicaid contacts in the study states. Contains 16 references.) (KB)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
 Show
 Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
 ERIC
Full Text (551K)
|
Author(s): |
N/A |
Source: |
N/A |
|
Pub Date: |
2001-04-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Guides - Non-Classroom; Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Competence; Competency Based Education; Education Work Relationship; Employment Potential; Evaluation Criteria; Glossaries; Insurance Companies; Insurance Occupations; Job Skills; Marketing; Occupational Clusters; Occupational Information; Office Occupations; Postsecondary Education; Sales Occupations; Secondary Education; State Standards; Vocational Education
Abstract:
This document contains 56 occupational skill standards for the insurance occupational cluster, as required for the state of Illinois. Skill standards, which were developed by committees that included educators and representatives from business, industry, and labor, are intended to promote education and training investment and ensure that students and workers are trained to meet industry standards benchmarked to international competitors. The standards include work to be performed, conditions of performance, performance criteria, performance elements, and performance assessment criteria (product and process). The 56 standards of the insurance occupational cluster are grouped into the following six areas: (1) safety and security; (2) basic office operations; (3) advanced office operations; (4) investigations; (5) sales and marketing; and (6) organization and planning. The document's introductory section provides information on skill standard development and requirements, occupational earnings and employment information, and performance skill levels. Five appendixes include a glossary of 24 terms and lists of members of the Illinois Occupational Skill Standards and Credentialing Council (IOSSCC), the IOSSCC Financial Subcouncil, the IOSSCC Insurance Cluster Standards Development Committee, and workplace skills. (KC)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (1410K)
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2000-12-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Collected Works - Serials |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; Fringe Benefits; Health Insurance; Insurance Companies; Public School Teachers
Abstract:
A study examined one state's suggestion for more cost-effective health insurance for teachers. Health insurance coverage for public school teachers in Wisconsin is determined through a collective-bargaining process. The Wisconsin Education Association (WEA) Insurance Corporation is affiliated with the states largest teachers' union and provides coverage to about 85 percent of the state's districts. Districts rarely put health insurance plans out to bid. Relative to other health insurers, WEA is more profitable. These facts suggest that competition between health insurers for teachers is limited. A current study reports a statistical analysis that tested whether WEA charges more for coverage than other insurers, controlling for demographic differences of those insured, policy characteristics, and other factors that are believed to be associated with the price of coverage. The results indicate that WEA does charge more than other insurers. The ability of the union-district contract negotiation process to result in an equitable determination of health insurance coverage is cast into doubt. Without a change in the rules governing the negotiation of health insurance benefits, there is little reason to believe that a competitive market for teachers' insurance will exist. A model for possible reform suggests the health insurance pool for state employees as an alternative. Assuming that the average teacher has the same health risks as an average state employee, the average teacher would have the equivalent of a pay raise of $875. Statewide the savings would be approximately $50 million a year. (RKJ)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
ERIC
Full Text (714K)
|
|
