High-Deductible Health Plans Don’t Seem to Encourage Price Shopping

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Sarah Kliff points today to a new paper that investigates the effect of high-deductible health plans. In theory, since these plans require people to spend more of their own money, it should motivate them to shop around for better prices. But that’s not how things turned out.

The chart on the right shows what happened when a large firm forced all of its employees to switch from an insurance plan that provided free health care to a high-deductible plan. At first, spending on medical care dropped sharply. Over the next two years, however, it rose back nearly to its previous level. (Note: ACG is a predictive measure of sickness.) The switch to the HDP plan apparently caused a short-term shock, but over the longer term people needed whatever health care they needed. They might not have liked it, but they paid the higher prices.

Still, they did spend less for a while. But how much of that came from shopping for lower prices vs. simply consuming less health care? The firm provided employees with a price-comparison tool, which made it fairly easy to shop for better prices, but apparently it went virtually unused. The best evidence of this comes from spending on imaging services like X-rays and MRIs. These are commodity services, and patients aren’t likely to use a higher-priced service simply because they don’t want to switch doctors. An X-ray is an X-ray.

But as the table below shows, price shopping accounted for barely any of the decrease in spending. Even for X-rays, most patients apparently just went wherever their doctors told them to go without shopping around at all. The researchers conclude:

Consumers did not shift to cheaper providers, either immediately in the first year post-switch or afterwards in the second year….Price shopping is not an important component of the spending reductions resulting from the switch to high-deductible care.

It’s possible, of course, that two years isn’t a long enough study period. Price shopping for medical care isn’t common, and it was especially uncommon at this firm, which had previously provided completely free health care. As usual then, more study is needed. But this is a pessimistic result for those who think that forcing consumers to pay for health care with their own money will motivate them to shop for better prices. It doesn’t seem to. Sarah Kliff has much more discussion of what this means at the link.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate