Scott E. Harrington, Ph.D. (http://www.scottharringtonphd.com/) is the Alan B. Miller Professor Emeritus of Health Care Management and Professor Emeritus of Insurance and Risk Management. He served as Chair of the Health Care Management Department during 2014-2020. A former President of both the American Risk and Insurance Association and the Risk Theory Society, he has published widely on the economics and regulation of insurance. He has conducted research, consulted, or served as an expert for many organizations and has testified multiple times on insurance regulation before the U.S. House and Senate and numerous state legislative and administrative committees.
Scott E. Harrington (2017), Stabilizing Individual Health Insurance Markets with Subsidized Reinsurance, Penn/LDI Issue Brief.
Scott E. Harrington, “U.S. Health Care Reform”. In Research Handbook on the Economics of Insurance Law, edited by Daniel Schwarcz and Peter Siegelman, (Elgar Publishing, 2015)
Description: with Mark Pauly and Adam Leive
Scott E. Harrington (2013), Medical Loss Ratio Regulation under the Affordable Care Act, Inquiry, 50, pp. 9-26.
Scott E. Harrington, “Cost of Capital for Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, and Medical Device Firms”. In Handbook of the Economics of the Biopharmaceutical Industry, edited by Patricia Danzon and Sean Nicholson, (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Guy David and Scott E. Harrington (2010), Population Density and Racial Differences in the Performance of Emergency Medical Services, Journal of Health Economics, July 2010, Vol. 29(4), pp 603-615. 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.03.004
Abstract: This paper analyzes the existence and scope of possible racial differences/disparities in the provision of emergency medical services (EMS) response capability (time from dispatch to arrival at the scene and level of training of the responding team) using data on approximately 120,000 cardiac incidents in the state of Mississippi during 1995–2004. The conceptual framework and empirical analysis focus on the likely effects of population density on the efficient production of EMS as a local public good subject to congestion, and on the need to control adequately for population density to avoid bias in testing for racial differences. Models that control for aggregate population density at the county-level indicate “reverse” disparities: faster estimated response times for African-Americans than for whites. When a refined county-level measure of population density is used that incorporates differences in African-American and white population density by Census tract, the reverse disparity in response times disappears. There also is little or no evidence of race-related differences in the certification level of EMS responders. However, there is evidence that, controlling for response time, African-Americans on average were significantly more likely to be deceased than whites upon EMS arrival at the scene. The overall results are germane to the debate over the scope of conditioning variables that should be included when testing for racial disparities in health care.
Scott E. Harrington (2010), The Health Insurance Reform Debate, The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 77: 5-38.
Abstract: This article provides an overview of the U.S. health care reform debate and legislation, with a focus on health insurance. Following a synopsis of the main problems that confront U.S. health care and insurance, it outlines the health care reform bills in the U.S. House and Senate, including the key provisions for expanding and regulating health insurance, and projections of the proposals’ costs, funding, and impact on the number of people with insurance. The article then discusses (1) the potential effects of the mandate that individuals have health insurance in conjunction with proposed premium subsidies and health insurance underwriting and rating restrictions, (2) the proposed creation of a public health insurance plan and/or non-profit cooperatives, and (3) provisions that would modify permissible grounds for health policy rescission and repeal the limited antitrust exemption for health and medical liability insurance. It concludes by contrasting the reform bills with market-oriented proposals and with brief perspective on future developments.
Scott E. Harrington (2009), The Financial Crisis, Systemic Risk, and the Future of Insurance Regulation, The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 76: 785-819.
Abstract: This article considers the role of American International Group (AIG) and the insurance sector in the 2007–2009 financial crisis and the implications for insurance regulation. Following an overview of the causes of the crisis, I explore the events and policies that contributed to federal government intervention to prevent bankruptcy of AIG and the scope of federal assistance to AIG. I discuss the extent to which insurance in general poses systemic risk and whether a systemic risk regulator is desirable for insurers or other nonbank financial institutions. The last two sections of the article address the financial crisis's implications for proposed optional and/or mandatory federal chartering and regulation of insurers and for insurance regulation in general.
This introductory course takes a policy and politics angle to health care's three persistent issues - access, cost and quality. The roles of patients, physicians, hospitals, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies will be established. The interaction between the government and these different groups will also be covered. Current national health care policy initiatives and the interests of class members will steer the specific topics covered in the course. The course aims to provide skills for critical and analytical thought about the U.S. health care system and the people in it.
Arranged with members of the Faculty of the Health Care Systems Department. For further information contact the Department office, Room 204, Colonial Penn Center, 3641 Locust Walk, 898-6861.
This course is intended to provide entering doctoral students with information on the variety of health economics models, methods, topics, and publication outlets valued and used by faculty in the HCMG doctoral program and outside of it. The course has two main parts: the first, to acquaint students with theoretical modeling tools used frequently by health economists. This part of the course involves a number of lectures coupled with students' presentations from the health economics, management and operations research community at Penn on a research method or strategy they have found helpful and they think is important for all doctoral students to know.
Experts say loosening regulations may not necessarily be healthy for either the public or pharmaceutical firms.…Read MoreKnowledge at Wharton - 3/10/2017
To interpret what we’ve seen so far and anticipate where we may be headed, we asked an expert panel of Wharton professors to examine his policies and do the impossible—predict the future for a nation under Trump.Wharton Magazine - 04/25/2017