Alan L. Gustman, Thomas L. Steinmeier, Nahid Tabatabai
This paper examines the distributional implications of introducing additional means testing of Social Security benefits where proceeds are used to help balance Social Security's finances. Benefits of the top quarter of households ranked according to the relevant measure of means are reduced using a modified version of the Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). The replacement rate in the first bracket of the benefit formula, determining the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA), would be reduced from 90 percent to 40 percent of Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME). Four measures of means are considered: total wealth; an annualized measure of AIME; the wealth value of pensions; and a measure of average indexed lifetime W2 earnings. The empirical analysis is based on data from the Health and Retirement Study. These means tests would reduce total lifetime household benefits by 7 to 9 percentage points. We find that the basis for means testing Social Security makes a substantial difference as to which households have their benefits reduced, and that different means tests may have different effects on the benefits of families in similar circumstance. We also find that the measure of means used to evaluate the effects of a means test makes a considerable difference as to how one would view the effects of the means test on the distribution of benefits.
{"title":"Distributional Effects of Means Testing Social Security: An Exploratory Analysis","authors":"Alan L. Gustman, Thomas L. Steinmeier, Nahid Tabatabai","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2516857","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2516857","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the distributional implications of introducing additional means testing of Social Security benefits where proceeds are used to help balance Social Security's finances. Benefits of the top quarter of households ranked according to the relevant measure of means are reduced using a modified version of the Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). The replacement rate in the first bracket of the benefit formula, determining the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA), would be reduced from 90 percent to 40 percent of Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME). Four measures of means are considered: total wealth; an annualized measure of AIME; the wealth value of pensions; and a measure of average indexed lifetime W2 earnings. The empirical analysis is based on data from the Health and Retirement Study. These means tests would reduce total lifetime household benefits by 7 to 9 percentage points. We find that the basis for means testing Social Security makes a substantial difference as to which households have their benefits reduced, and that different means tests may have different effects on the benefits of families in similar circumstance. We also find that the measure of means used to evaluate the effects of a means test makes a considerable difference as to how one would view the effects of the means test on the distribution of benefits.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89753457","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following the litigation over the collapsed Bridgecorp Group in New Zealand since 2011, the application of s 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) and s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 (NZ) to claims-made policies has been the focus of considerable interest. Through a review of recent case law, this article examines how the courts in Australia and New Zealand have grappled with the application of these arguably antiquated provisions to the complexities of modern professional indemnity and directors and officers insurance policies.
{"title":"The Application of s 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) to Claims-Made Insurance Policies: An Analysis of Recent Developments","authors":"R. Bowley","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3250246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3250246","url":null,"abstract":"Following the litigation over the collapsed Bridgecorp Group in New Zealand since 2011, the application of s 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) and s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 (NZ) to claims-made policies has been the focus of considerable interest. Through a review of recent case law, this article examines how the courts in Australia and New Zealand have grappled with the application of these arguably antiquated provisions to the complexities of modern professional indemnity and directors and officers insurance policies.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78730846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I study the channels through which health insurance influences medical innovation. Following Medicare and Medicaid's passage, I find that U.S.-based medical-equipment patenting rose by 40 to 50 percent relative to both other U.S. patenting and foreign medical-equipment patenting. Within the United States, increases in medical-equipment patenting were most dramatic in states where the Great Society insurance expansions were largest and in which there were large baseline numbers of physicians per resident. Consistent with historical case studies, Medical innovation's determinants extend beyond the potential revenues associated with global market size; a physician driven process of innovation-while-doing appears to play a central role. An extrapolation of the evidence suggests that the last half century's U.S. insurance expansions have driven 25 percent of recent global medical-equipment innovation. In a standard decomposition of health spending growth, this insurance-induced innovation accounts for 15 percent of the long run rise in U.S. health spending in hospitals, physicians' offices, and other clinical settings.
{"title":"The Effect of U.S. Health Insurance Expansions on Medical Innovation","authors":"Jeffrey Clemens","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2101246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2101246","url":null,"abstract":"I study the channels through which health insurance influences medical innovation. Following Medicare and Medicaid's passage, I find that U.S.-based medical-equipment patenting rose by 40 to 50 percent relative to both other U.S. patenting and foreign medical-equipment patenting. Within the United States, increases in medical-equipment patenting were most dramatic in states where the Great Society insurance expansions were largest and in which there were large baseline numbers of physicians per resident. Consistent with historical case studies, Medical innovation's determinants extend beyond the potential revenues associated with global market size; a physician driven process of innovation-while-doing appears to play a central role. An extrapolation of the evidence suggests that the last half century's U.S. insurance expansions have driven 25 percent of recent global medical-equipment innovation. In a standard decomposition of health spending growth, this insurance-induced innovation accounts for 15 percent of the long run rise in U.S. health spending in hospitals, physicians' offices, and other clinical settings.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88873500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-11-01DOI: 10.1017/9781316492635.003
C. Kousky
Insuring disaster risks can be challenging, due to spatial correlations and fat-tailed loss distributions. This chapter examines catastrophe insurance with a particular focus on events that alter risk assessments in the insurance industry. It addresses two questions: (1) What types of events lead the (re)insurance industry to update risk assessments? (2) How do companies, consumers, and the government respond to updated risk assessments? Updating is more likely to occur for risks with unknown or changing loss distributions. When an extreme event leads to altered assessments of the risk, insurance firms will reevaluate their pricing, exposure, underwriting policies, and capital management practices. Severe events that lead to this type of risk updating, however, also often lead to updating on the part of consumers and governments. This chapter traces how all three sectors may respond when they assess a risk as higher than they did previously. This may lead to temporary adjustments, or it could cause new equilibrium conditions in the market or permanent government interventions.
{"title":"Revised Risk Assessments and the Insurance Industry","authors":"C. Kousky","doi":"10.1017/9781316492635.003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316492635.003","url":null,"abstract":"Insuring disaster risks can be challenging, due to spatial correlations and fat-tailed loss distributions. This chapter examines catastrophe insurance with a particular focus on events that alter risk assessments in the insurance industry. It addresses two questions: (1) What types of events lead the (re)insurance industry to update risk assessments? (2) How do companies, consumers, and the government respond to updated risk assessments? Updating is more likely to occur for risks with unknown or changing loss distributions. When an extreme event leads to altered assessments of the risk, insurance firms will reevaluate their pricing, exposure, underwriting policies, and capital management practices. Severe events that lead to this type of risk updating, however, also often lead to updating on the part of consumers and governments. This chapter traces how all three sectors may respond when they assess a risk as higher than they did previously. This may lead to temporary adjustments, or it could cause new equilibrium conditions in the market or permanent government interventions.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79243482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Under the U.S. Affordable Care Act (ACA), many low income consumers will become eligible for government support to buy health insurance. Whether these consumers are able to take advantage of the support and to make sound decisions about purchasing health insurance will likely depend on their knowledge and skills in navigating complex financial products. This ability is frequently referred to as "financial literacy". This paper examined the level and distribution of consumers' financial literacy across income groups, using 2012 data collected in the RAND American Life Panel, an internet panel representative of the U.S. population. Financial illiteracy was particularly prevalent among individuals with incomes between 100–400% of the Federal Poverty Line, many of whom will be eligible for subsidies. In this group, the young, less educated, females, and those with less income were more likely to have low financial literacy. The findings suggest the need for targeted policies to support vulnerable consumers in making good choices for themselves, possibly above and beyond the support measures already planned for in the ACA.
根据美国平价医疗法案(ACA)，许多低收入消费者将有资格获得政府支持购买医疗保险。这些消费者是否能够利用这种支持，并就购买健康保险做出合理的决定，可能取决于他们驾驭复杂金融产品的知识和技能。这种能力通常被称为“金融知识”。本文利用代表美国人口的互联网小组——兰德美国生活小组(RAND American Life Panel)收集的2012年数据，考察了不同收入群体消费者的金融知识水平和分布。在收入在联邦贫困线100-400%之间的个人中，金融文盲尤其普遍，其中许多人将有资格获得补贴。在这个群体中，年轻、受教育程度较低、女性和收入较低的人更有可能缺乏金融知识。调查结果表明，需要有针对性的政策来支持弱势消费者为自己做出正确的选择，这可能超出ACA计划的支持措施。
{"title":"Financial Literacy and Consumer Choice of Health Insurance: Evidence from Low-Income Populations in the United States","authors":"Sebastian Bauhoff, K. Carman, Amelie Wuppermann","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2326756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2326756","url":null,"abstract":"Under the U.S. Affordable Care Act (ACA), many low income consumers will become eligible for government support to buy health insurance. Whether these consumers are able to take advantage of the support and to make sound decisions about purchasing health insurance will likely depend on their knowledge and skills in navigating complex financial products. This ability is frequently referred to as \"financial literacy\". This paper examined the level and distribution of consumers' financial literacy across income groups, using 2012 data collected in the RAND American Life Panel, an internet panel representative of the U.S. population. Financial illiteracy was particularly prevalent among individuals with incomes between 100–400% of the Federal Poverty Line, many of whom will be eligible for subsidies. In this group, the young, less educated, females, and those with less income were more likely to have low financial literacy. The findings suggest the need for targeted policies to support vulnerable consumers in making good choices for themselves, possibly above and beyond the support measures already planned for in the ACA.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75829557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A large share of new Social Security Disability (SSD) beneficiaries -- disabled workers and disabled adult children (DAC) -- are under age 40. Better information on the backgrounds, impairments, personal characteristics, and employment outcomes of these beneficiaries would help policymakers develop programs tailored to the needs and circumstances of various subgroups of such beneficiaries. We use administrative data on young SSD awardees first awarded benefits between 1996 and 2007 to examine trends in these awardees’ composition and outcomes. We find that the composition of young SSD awardees changed substantially during this period. In 2007, compared to 1996, relatively more SSD awards to individuals under age 40 went to DAC versus disabled workers; to disabled workers and DAC who had received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, especially as children, versus those with no SSI history; and to disabled workers and DAC with psychiatric disorders versus those with other types of impairments. We also find that disabled workers who received SSI as children are far more likely than those who did not receive SSI as children to earn more than $1,000 annually (in 2007 dollars) as of the fifth post-award year; that compared to disabled workers, DAC are considerably less likely to work and earn more than $1,000 annually; and that both disabled workers and DAC are significantly less likely to earn more than 12 times the non-blind substantial gainful activity level (SGA) annually than they are to earn more than $1,000 annually. We discuss factors that may have contributed to the observed trends.
{"title":"Trends in the Composition and Outcomes of Young Social Security Disability Awardees","authors":"Yonatan Ben-Shalom, D. Stapleton","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2306581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2306581","url":null,"abstract":"A large share of new Social Security Disability (SSD) beneficiaries -- disabled workers and disabled adult children (DAC) -- are under age 40. Better information on the backgrounds, impairments, personal characteristics, and employment outcomes of these beneficiaries would help policymakers develop programs tailored to the needs and circumstances of various subgroups of such beneficiaries. We use administrative data on young SSD awardees first awarded benefits between 1996 and 2007 to examine trends in these awardees’ composition and outcomes. We find that the composition of young SSD awardees changed substantially during this period. In 2007, compared to 1996, relatively more SSD awards to individuals under age 40 went to DAC versus disabled workers; to disabled workers and DAC who had received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, especially as children, versus those with no SSI history; and to disabled workers and DAC with psychiatric disorders versus those with other types of impairments. We also find that disabled workers who received SSI as children are far more likely than those who did not receive SSI as children to earn more than $1,000 annually (in 2007 dollars) as of the fifth post-award year; that compared to disabled workers, DAC are considerably less likely to work and earn more than $1,000 annually; and that both disabled workers and DAC are significantly less likely to earn more than 12 times the non-blind substantial gainful activity level (SGA) annually than they are to earn more than $1,000 annually. We discuss factors that may have contributed to the observed trends.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86005516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-04-23DOI: 10.17159/1727-3781/2013/V16I1A2319
Anthea Natalie Wagener
Insurers use actuarial statistics as rating variables to differentiate and distinguish for the purposes of risk classification. They justify their use of actuarial statistics due to its accuracy as a predictor of risk. South African motor-vehicle insurers use gender, inter alia , as a rating variable to classify risks into certain classes and to determine insurance premiums. Depending upon whether the insured is male or female, it could have a significant impact on the cost of his or her premium. Women drivers pay less for motor-vehicle insurance because actuarial statistics indicate that women are more careful drivers and are involved in 20 per cent fewer accidents than men. Men pay higher premiums because the statistics indicate that they are less responsible drivers than women. Should a South African court decide that the use of gender as a motor-vehicle insurance rating variable is unfair discrimination, this would benefit male drivers, as it would lower their premium. Women, on the other hand, would be disadvantaged as they would be required to pay higher premiums to subsidise men. The article examines the impact that the removal of gender as a rating variable in motor-vehicle insurance would have on women, and asks if the effects thereof would influence a South African Court’s decision in determining if the use of gender as a rating variable amounts to unfair discrimination. The article first considers the findings of American and Canadian Courts in determining this same issue and then considers South African equality legislation, particularly the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (“the Equality Act ”). Thereafter, the article provides recommendations for a South African Court. As the Equality Act indicates that the discriminatory insurance practice of placing a disadvantage or advantage on persons based inter alia on their gender may possibly be unfair, it is suggested that South African insurers would have to consider alternative methods of risk assessment. In the light of the American and the Canadian case law, the article suggests that there should be a change of approach to insurance risk assessment. Rather than using gender as a rating variable the insurer could assess the risk of the individual insured, using appropriate, neutral rating variables suited to the particular circumstances of the insured. This would require a much more intensive and individualised risk evaluation and would require the insurer to “tailor-make” insurance for each individual. It is submitted that such an approach would give effect to the right to equality by disallowing the use of gender as a rating variable without producing the undesirable consequence that women drivers would have to subsidise men.
{"title":"The Impact on Women on the Removal of Gender as a Rating Variable in Motor-Vehicle Insurance","authors":"Anthea Natalie Wagener","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2013/V16I1A2319","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2013/V16I1A2319","url":null,"abstract":"Insurers use actuarial statistics as rating variables to differentiate and distinguish for the purposes of risk classification. They justify their use of actuarial statistics due to its accuracy as a predictor of risk. South African motor-vehicle insurers use gender, inter alia , as a rating variable to classify risks into certain classes and to determine insurance premiums. Depending upon whether the insured is male or female, it could have a significant impact on the cost of his or her premium. Women drivers pay less for motor-vehicle insurance because actuarial statistics indicate that women are more careful drivers and are involved in 20 per cent fewer accidents than men. Men pay higher premiums because the statistics indicate that they are less responsible drivers than women. Should a South African court decide that the use of gender as a motor-vehicle insurance rating variable is unfair discrimination, this would benefit male drivers, as it would lower their premium. Women, on the other hand, would be disadvantaged as they would be required to pay higher premiums to subsidise men. The article examines the impact that the removal of gender as a rating variable in motor-vehicle insurance would have on women, and asks if the effects thereof would influence a South African Court’s decision in determining if the use of gender as a rating variable amounts to unfair discrimination. The article first considers the findings of American and Canadian Courts in determining this same issue and then considers South African equality legislation, particularly the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (“the Equality Act ”). Thereafter, the article provides recommendations for a South African Court. As the Equality Act indicates that the discriminatory insurance practice of placing a disadvantage or advantage on persons based inter alia on their gender may possibly be unfair, it is suggested that South African insurers would have to consider alternative methods of risk assessment. In the light of the American and the Canadian case law, the article suggests that there should be a change of approach to insurance risk assessment. Rather than using gender as a rating variable the insurer could assess the risk of the individual insured, using appropriate, neutral rating variables suited to the particular circumstances of the insured. This would require a much more intensive and individualised risk evaluation and would require the insurer to “tailor-make” insurance for each individual. It is submitted that such an approach would give effect to the right to equality by disallowing the use of gender as a rating variable without producing the undesirable consequence that women drivers would have to subsidise men.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84663537","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, most employers must provide their employees with health insurance that covers all FDA approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures (the “HHS mandate”). Across the country, individuals, religious schools, and corporations have sued to enjoin the mandate, arguing, among other things, that it violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). Federal district courts have reached conflicting decisions in the 15 cases decided to date, leaving the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits to sort out the complex relationship between the free exercise clause and laws, such as the HHS mandate, that are alleged to be neutral and generally applicable. But these cases are made even more difficult because of a specific claim that is raised in each case — that corporations can exercise religion under the First Amendment and RFRA. As several district courts have noted, “whether secular corporations can exercise religion is an open question.” This paper analyzes this novel and unresolved issue, arguing that, just as corporations can engage in free speech under Citizens United, for-profit corporations can exercise religion under the free exercise clause and RFRA. Although the Supreme Court has not addressed this specific issue, I argue that it has established rules for determining whether corporations can invoke particular constitutional rights and that, under these rules, corporations can invoke the protection of the free exercise clause. Several district courts have reached the opposite conclusion, while several others have avoided the issue altogether. Relying primarily on a single footnote in First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the courts denying free exercise protection to for-profit corporations maintain that the free exercise of religion is a “purely personal” right that is limited to individuals and religious non-profit organizations. This paper contends, however, that a more detailed review of Bellotti, Citizens United, and the Court’s other decisions regarding the constitutional rights of corporations reveals that free exercise, like the freedom of speech, is not a “purely personal” right. Consequently, corporations — whether for-profit or non-profit — can claim its protection. Moreover, in the wake of Bellotti and Citizens United, neither the “profit motive” of a for-profit corporation nor the “religious nature” of religious organizations (e.g., churches) justifies limiting the free exercise clause only to individuals and non-profit religious organizations. Although many (perhaps most) corporations may choose not to engage in religious activities, there is no constitutional basis for precluding a priori all for-profit businesses from raising free exercise claims.
{"title":"For-Profit Corporations, Free Exercise, and the HHS Mandate","authors":"S. W. Gaylord","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2237630","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2237630","url":null,"abstract":"Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, most employers must provide their employees with health insurance that covers all FDA approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures (the “HHS mandate”). Across the country, individuals, religious schools, and corporations have sued to enjoin the mandate, arguing, among other things, that it violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). Federal district courts have reached conflicting decisions in the 15 cases decided to date, leaving the Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits to sort out the complex relationship between the free exercise clause and laws, such as the HHS mandate, that are alleged to be neutral and generally applicable. But these cases are made even more difficult because of a specific claim that is raised in each case — that corporations can exercise religion under the First Amendment and RFRA. As several district courts have noted, “whether secular corporations can exercise religion is an open question.” This paper analyzes this novel and unresolved issue, arguing that, just as corporations can engage in free speech under Citizens United, for-profit corporations can exercise religion under the free exercise clause and RFRA. Although the Supreme Court has not addressed this specific issue, I argue that it has established rules for determining whether corporations can invoke particular constitutional rights and that, under these rules, corporations can invoke the protection of the free exercise clause. Several district courts have reached the opposite conclusion, while several others have avoided the issue altogether. Relying primarily on a single footnote in First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the courts denying free exercise protection to for-profit corporations maintain that the free exercise of religion is a “purely personal” right that is limited to individuals and religious non-profit organizations. This paper contends, however, that a more detailed review of Bellotti, Citizens United, and the Court’s other decisions regarding the constitutional rights of corporations reveals that free exercise, like the freedom of speech, is not a “purely personal” right. Consequently, corporations — whether for-profit or non-profit — can claim its protection. Moreover, in the wake of Bellotti and Citizens United, neither the “profit motive” of a for-profit corporation nor the “religious nature” of religious organizations (e.g., churches) justifies limiting the free exercise clause only to individuals and non-profit religious organizations. Although many (perhaps most) corporations may choose not to engage in religious activities, there is no constitutional basis for precluding a priori all for-profit businesses from raising free exercise claims.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83310005","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-03-17DOI: 10.3868/S050-002-013-0019-9
Qihao He, Ruohong Chen
It is reasonable to expect that catastrophe insurance system will be established in China in the near future, since it is one of the main topics in the Fourth National Finance Working Conference, and it is the first three working points of China Insurance Regulation Commission (CIRC) this year. Due to the high loss of catastrophe and incapacity of the insurance industry, securitization of catastrophe risk serves as a significant alternative risk tool for catastrophe insurance industry. This has been practiced in the U.S. since the mid-1990s and catastrophe bonds are perfect examples. In this paper, we will first introduce the practices and challenges of securitization of catastrophe risk in the U.S., especially the catastrophe bonds which have been the predominant form until now. And then, the author will use the supply-demand framework to analyze whether securitization of risk is feasible in China. However, due to the institutional shortcomings, including legal frame, regulatory institutions and so on, issuing the ILS will take quite a long time and a tough process in China.
{"title":"Securitization of Catastrophe Insurance Risk and Catastrophe Bonds: Experiences and Lessons to Learn","authors":"Qihao He, Ruohong Chen","doi":"10.3868/S050-002-013-0019-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3868/S050-002-013-0019-9","url":null,"abstract":"It is reasonable to expect that catastrophe insurance system will be established in China in the near future, since it is one of the main topics in the Fourth National Finance Working Conference, and it is the first three working points of China Insurance Regulation Commission (CIRC) this year. Due to the high loss of catastrophe and incapacity of the insurance industry, securitization of catastrophe risk serves as a significant alternative risk tool for catastrophe insurance industry. This has been practiced in the U.S. since the mid-1990s and catastrophe bonds are perfect examples. In this paper, we will first introduce the practices and challenges of securitization of catastrophe risk in the U.S., especially the catastrophe bonds which have been the predominant form until now. And then, the author will use the supply-demand framework to analyze whether securitization of risk is feasible in China. However, due to the institutional shortcomings, including legal frame, regulatory institutions and so on, issuing the ILS will take quite a long time and a tough process in China.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83233295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Census's Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) nearly doubles the elderly poverty rate compared to the "Official" Poverty Measure (OPM), a result of the SPM subtraction of medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) expenditures from income. Neither the SPM nor OPM counts health benefits or assets as resources. Validation studies suggest that subtracting MOOP from resources worsens a poverty measure's predictive validity and excluding assets exacerbates this bias, since assets fund MOOP. The SPM is based on a 1995 NAS report that recommended a health-exclusive poverty measure, despite considering it, conceptually, a "second best" to a Health-Inclusive Poverty Measure (HIPM). We analyze the reasons for the NAS recommendation and argue that constructing a HIPM is now feasible if we conceptualize health needs as a need for health insurance, and if plans with non-risk-rated premiums and caps on MOOP are universally available, a condition largely met by the Affordable Care Act and Medicare Advantage Plans. We describe four HIPM variants and present analyses that suggest the SPM treatment of MOOP results in a less valid measure of elderly poverty and an overstatement of the elderly poverty rate (by up to 5.5 percentage points or 50 percent). Many elderly classified as poor by the SPM's unlimited MOOP deduction are not poorly insured persons with incomes near the poverty line, but well-insured persons with incomes well above the poverty line.
{"title":"Rethinking Elderly Poverty: Time for a Health Inclusive Poverty Measure?","authors":"S. Korenman, D. Remler","doi":"10.3386/W18900","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3386/W18900","url":null,"abstract":"Census's Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) nearly doubles the elderly poverty rate compared to the \"Official\" Poverty Measure (OPM), a result of the SPM subtraction of medical out-of-pocket (MOOP) expenditures from income. Neither the SPM nor OPM counts health benefits or assets as resources. Validation studies suggest that subtracting MOOP from resources worsens a poverty measure's predictive validity and excluding assets exacerbates this bias, since assets fund MOOP. The SPM is based on a 1995 NAS report that recommended a health-exclusive poverty measure, despite considering it, conceptually, a \"second best\" to a Health-Inclusive Poverty Measure (HIPM). We analyze the reasons for the NAS recommendation and argue that constructing a HIPM is now feasible if we conceptualize health needs as a need for health insurance, and if plans with non-risk-rated premiums and caps on MOOP are universally available, a condition largely met by the Affordable Care Act and Medicare Advantage Plans. We describe four HIPM variants and present analyses that suggest the SPM treatment of MOOP results in a less valid measure of elderly poverty and an overstatement of the elderly poverty rate (by up to 5.5 percentage points or 50 percent). Many elderly classified as poor by the SPM's unlimited MOOP deduction are not poorly insured persons with incomes near the poverty line, but well-insured persons with incomes well above the poverty line.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89198616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：