Objective: The goal of this study was to determine whether lower premium payments for individuals with non-preventable diseases would be a viable option in the development of new health insurance models. This change would coincide with an increase in financial liability for those individuals with preventable illnesses. Theoretically, the proposed change would result in greater profits for providers and a more just allocation of payments.
Method: A brief survey was randomly distributed by phone calls and letters to individuals living in the Minneapolis West Metro area. The eighteen responses received were subsequently analyzed using Fisher and Chi-Square methods as well as basic statistical functions.
Results: While particular demographics tended to respond in similar ways, in no case were said responses statistically significant. There was no significant correlation for example, between the gender of participants and their responses to a potential change in insurance formulas to either aid those with non-preventable illnesses or increase costs for those with preventable health concerns. Additionally, responses were insignificant in relation to characteristics of participants such as smoking status and responses to other questions.
Conclusion: Although the potential for increased efficiency exists in the proposed change to health insurance formulas, public opinion could cause such a change to be detrimental to providers who choose to enact it.