IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Where Do the Sick Go? Health Insurance and Employment in Small and Large Firms

  • Kanika Kapur

    (University College Dublin)

  • José J Escarce


  • M Susan Marquis


  • Kosali I Simon

    (Cornell University)

Small firms that offer health insurance to their employees may face variable premiums if the firm hires an employee with high-expected health costs. To avoid expensive premium variability, a small firm may attempt to maintain a workforce with low-expected health costs. In addition, workers with high-expected health costs may prefer employment in larger firms with health insurance rather than in smaller firms. This results in employment distortions. We examine the magnitude of these employment distortions in hiring, employment, and separations, using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1996 to 2001. Furthermore, we examine the effect of state small group health insurance reforms that restrict insurers’ ability to deny coverage and restrict premium variability on employment distortions in small firms relative to large firms. We find that workers with high-expected health cost are less likely to be new hires in small firms that offer health insurance, and are less likely to be employed in insured small firms. However, we find no evidence that state small group health insurance reforms have reduced the extent of these distortions. Estimating the magnitude of employment distortions in insured small firms is essential in refining reforms to the small group health insurance market. The difficulties that small firms face in obtaining and maintaining health insurance for their employees have been widely documented (Brown, Hamilton and Medoff, 1990; McLaughlin,1992; Fronstin and Helman, 2000). Only 45% of firms with fewer than 50 employees offer health insurance compared to 97% of firms with 50 or more employees (AHRQ, 2002). This low proportion has been attributed, in part, to the high administrative cost of health insurance for small firms, the low demand for insurance among workers in these firms, and the unwillingness of insurers to take on small firm risks (McLaughlin, 1992, Fronstin and Helman, 2000, Monheit and Vistnes, 1999). In recent decades, small firms that provide health insurance to their employees were in a precarious position. Their premiums were calculated yearly, based on the expected value of their health care utilization. Hence, a single high cost employee could lead to a substantial surcharge on the premiums for the firm (Zellers, McLaughlin, and Frick, 1992). In a survey of small employers that did not offer health insurance, 75 percent claimed that an important reason for not offering insurance was high premium variability (Morrisey, Jensen and Morlock, 1994). Concerns about these problems fueled the passage of numerous state small group health insurance reforms in the 1990s that implemented premium rating reforms and restrictions on pre-existing condition exclusions. While a few states have implemented premium rating reform that has severely restricted small group insurers’ ability to use health status to set premiums, in most states, these reforms have been moderate. Assuming that firms are unable to perfectly tailor individual wages to individual health insurance costs, unexpectedly high premiums may impose a large burden on small firms. Paying high premiums, possibly financed by borrowing at high interest rates, may increase the risk of bankruptcy. If small firms choose not to pay high premiums, and instead drop insurance coverage, they renege on the implicit compensation contract with workers. Employers may opt to raise employee contributions to cover higher costs but large increases may lead to healthier employees dropping coverage. Faced with this predicament, small firms may choose to prevent expensive premium variability by maintaining a work force that has a low-expected utilization of health care services. Thus, the link between employment and health insurance in small firms may result in a welfare loss if it prevents individuals with high-expected health costs from being employed in small firm jobs in which they may have high match specific productivity. Employers may obtain information about employees’ medical conditions in several ways. Before the passage of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), half of all employers conducted pre-employment medical examinations (U.S. Congress, 1988). Most small group employers required the completion of a family health questionnaire for insurance coverage (Zellers et al., 1992, Cutler 1994). While ADA now restricts employer inquiries on employee health, it does not apply to firms with under 15 employees. In addition, employer compliance with the ADA may be hindered because its stipulations about pre-employment health inquiries are vague. Medical inquires are allowed if they pertain to the applicant’s ability to perform the job. In addition, medical information is explicitly allowed in the use of medical underwriting for insurance (Epstein, 1996). The media continues to report cases where employers easily obtain employee medical records (Rubin, 1998), or employees have been laid-off because of high health costs (O’Connor, 1996), or employee premiums have been adjusted to reflect the employee’s claims experience (Kolata, 1992). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) includes a nondiscrimination provision that bars a group health plan or issuer from discriminating in eligibility or contributions on the basis of a health status-related factor. However, HIPAA allows medical underwriting and allows insurers to rate groups of employees based on health status as long as the premium rate for all employees is blended. This stipulation prevents employers from requiring higher cost employees to contribute a higher premium share, but does not shield employers from bearing the costs for a sick worker. Economists have typically believed that health insurance is an attribute of “good jobs” and workers do not choose jobs based on whether or not the job provides health insurance. In fact, this precept is behind the notion that employment is a mechanism for minimizing adverse selection in the market for health insurance (see, for example, Gruber and Levitt, 2000). However, a number of recent studies have suggested that worker demand for health insurance may play an important role in employment decisions. Workers with high-expected family costs may prefer jobs that offer health insurance, and conversely, workers with low preferences for health insurance may sort into jobs that lack health insurance. (Monheit and Vistnes, 1999, Monheit and Vistnes, 2006, Royalty and Abraham, 2005, Bundorf and Pauly, 2004). In this paper, we use the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 1996 to 2001 to examine the magnitude of employment distortions for workers with high-expected health costs. Since health insurance and employment are linked, health insurance may be an important determinant of employment outcomes. High-expected health costs may reduce the probability that workers are employed in firms where they have the highest match specific productivity. We estimate the magnitude of distortions in hiring, employment, and separations. Furthermore, we examine the effect of state small group health insurance reforms that restrict insurers’ ability to deny coverage and restrict premium variability on employment distortions in small firms relative to large firms. Estimating the magnitude of employment distortions in insured small firms and understanding the effect of small group regulation on these distortions is essential in deciding optimal public policy towards the small group health insurance market.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: First version, 2006
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by School of Economics, University College Dublin in its series Working Papers with number 200613.

in new window

Length: 41 pages
Date of creation: 19 Nov 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ucn:wpaper:200613
Contact details of provider: Postal: UCD, Belfield, Dublin 4
Phone: +353-1-7067777
Fax: +353-1-283 0068
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Robert Kaestner & Kosali Ilayperuma Simon, 2002. "Labor Market Consequences of State Health Insurance Regulation," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 56(1), pages 136-159, October.
  2. Willard G. Manning & John Mullahy, 1999. "Estimating Log Models: To Transform or Not to Transform?," NBER Technical Working Papers 0246, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Kanika Kapur, 2003. "Labor Market Implications of State Small Group Health Insurance Reform," Public Finance Review, , vol. 31(6), pages 571-600, November.
  4. Frank A. Scott & Mark C. Berger & John E. Garen, 1995. "Do Health Insurance and Pension Costs Reduce the Job Opportunities of Older Workers?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 48(4), pages 775-791, July.
  5. Brigitte C. Madrian, 1993. "Employment-Based Health Insurance and Job Mobility: Is There Evidence ofJob-Lock?," NBER Working Papers 4476, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. Kanika Kapur, 1998. "The Impact of Health on Job Mobility: A Measure of Job Lock," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 51(2), pages 282-298, January.
  7. David M. Cutler & Brigitte C. Madrian, 1998. "Labor Market Responses to Rising Health Insurance Costs: Evidence on Hours Worked," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(3), pages 509-530, Autumn.
  8. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
  9. Ilayperuma Simon, Kosali, 2005. "Adverse selection in health insurance markets? Evidence from state small-group health insurance reforms," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(9-10), pages 1865-1877, September.
  10. David M. Cutler, 1994. "A Guide to Health Care Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 13-29, Summer.
  11. David Cutler, 1994. "Market Failure in Small Group Health Insurance," NBER Working Papers 4879, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  12. Kanika Kapur, 2004. "The Impact of the Health Insurance Market on Small Firm Employment," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 71(1), pages 63-90.
  13. Alan C. Monheit & Jessica Primoff Vistnes, 2006. "Health Insurance Enrollment Decisions: Preferences for Coverage, Worker Sorting, and Insurance Take Up," NBER Working Papers 12429, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Thomas Buchmueller & John Dinardo, 2002. "Did Community Rating Induce an Adverse Selection Death Spiral? Evidence from New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 280-294, March.
  15. Kanika Kapur, 1998. "The impact of health on job mobility : a measure of job lock," Open Access publications 10197/297, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
  16. Davidoff, Amy & Blumberg, Linda & Nichols, Len, 2005. "State health insurance market reforms and access to insurance for high-risk employees," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 725-750, July.
  17. Royalty, Anne Beeson & Abraham, Jean M., 2006. "Health insurance and labor market outcomes: Joint decision-making within households," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(8-9), pages 1561-1577, September.
  18. Alan C. Monheit & Jessica Primoff Vistnes, 1999. "Health Insurance Availability at the Workplace: How Important are Worker Preferences?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 34(4), pages 770-785.
  19. Monheit, Alan C. & Steinberg Schone, Barbara, 2004. "How has small group market reform affected employee health insurance coverage?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(1-2), pages 237-254, January.
  20. Jayanta Bhattacharya & William B. Vogt, 2006. "Employment and Adverse Selection in Health Insurance," NBER Working Papers 12430, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucn:wpaper:200613. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nicolas Clifton)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.