DOCSLIB.ORG

The Affordable Care Act and Health Insurance Markets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Affordable Care Act and Health Insurance Markets CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and EDUCATION AND THE ARTS decisionmaking through research and analysis. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service INFRASTRUCTURE AND of the RAND Corporation. TRANSPORTATION INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY Support RAND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Browse Reports & Bookstore TERRORISM AND Make a charitable contribution HOMELAND SECURITY For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Corporation View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This report is part of the RAND Corporation research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. The Affordable Care Act and Health Insurance Markets Simulating the Effects of Regulation Christine Eibner • Amado Cordova • Sarah A. Nowak • Carter C. Price Evan Saltzman • Dulani Woods Prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services C O R P O R A T I O N The research described in this report was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The work was conducted in RAND Health, a division of the RAND Corporation. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND—make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/ contribute.html R® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2013 RAND Corporation This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html). RAND OFFICES SANTA MONICA, CA • WASHINGTON, DC PITTSBURGH, PA • NEW ORLEANS, LA • JACKSON, MS • BOSTON, MA DOHA, QA • CAMBRIDGE, UK • BRUSSELS, BE Preface The Affordable Care Act changes the rating regulations governing the small nongroup and group markets while simultaneously encouraging enrollment through a combination of subsidies, tax credits, and tax penalties. Policymakers and other stakeholders sted are intere in understanding how these changes might affect health insurance enrollment, , premiums and other outcomes to inform exchange implementation and n pla ning. In this report, we estimate the effects of the Affordable Care Act on health insurance enrollment and premiums ten for states (Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, ) and Texas and for the nation overall, with a focus on outcomes in the nongroup and small group markets. This analysis was sponsored by the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance CCIIO, Oversight ( a division of the Centers & for Medicare Medicaid Services [CMS]) through an interagency agreement with U.S. the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE). However, the views, opinions, and findings presented here are those of the authors and should not be construed as official government positions unless so designated by other documents. The research was conducted by RAND Health, a division of the RAND Corporation. Questions may be addressed to Christine eibner@rand.org Eibner ( ; (703) 413-­‐1100, ext. 5913). A profile of RAND Health, abstracts of its publications, and ordering information http://w can be found at ww.rand.org/health. iii Contents Preface ........................................................................................................................................................ iii Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... vi Results: Number of Uninsured Individuals............................................................................................. vii Results: Nongroup Market Enrollment ................................................................................................. viii Results: Nongroup Premiums ................................................................................................................ viii Results: Small Group Market Enrollment................................................................................................ ix Results: Small Group Premiums .............................................................................................................. ix Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. x Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... xi I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 II. The Affordable Care Act and the Nongroup and Small Group Markets................................................... 3 III. COMPARE Background ............................................................................................................................ 6 Individual Choices ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Firm Choices ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Premiums ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Medical Loss Ratio .................................................................................................................................. 10 Uncertainty in Premiums ........................................................................................................................ 11 Calibration .............................................................................................................................................. 12 State Reweighting .................................................................................................................................. 12 Nongroup Market Adjustments ............................................................................................................. 13 Small Group Market Adjustments .......................................................................................................... 14 Exchange Enrollment .............................................................................................................................. 15 Updates .................................................................................................................................................. 15 iv Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Comparison to Other Models................................................................................................................. 18 IV. Results ................................................................................................................................................... 20 Uninsurance ........................................................................................................................................... 20 Nongroup Outcomes .............................................................................................................................. 21 Small Group Market ............................................................................................................................... 25 V. Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 28 Risk Pool Construction ............................................................................................................................ 28 Medicaid Expansion ..............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Microeconomics of Insurance Full Text Available At
    Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0700000023 The Microeconomics of Insurance Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0700000023 The Microeconomics of Insurance Ray Rees Institut f¨ur Volkswirtschaftslehre University of Munich Ludwigstrasse 28/III VG 80539 Munich Germany Ray.Rees@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Achim Wambach Department of Economics University of Cologne 50931 Cologne Germany wambach@wiso.uni-koeln.de Boston – Delft Full text available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/0700000023 Foundations and Trends R in Microeconomics Published, sold and distributed by: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 1024 Hanover, MA 02339 USA Tel. +1-781-985-4510 www.nowpublishers.com sales@nowpublishers.com Outside North America: now Publishers Inc. PO Box 179 2600 AD Delft The Netherlands Tel. +31-6-51115274 The preferred citation for this publication is R. Rees and A. Wambach, The Microe- conomics of Insurance, Foundations and Trends R in Microeconomics, vol 4, no 1–2, pp 1–163, 2008 ISBN: 978-1-60198-108-0 c 2008 R. Rees and A. Wambach All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publishers. Photocopying. In the USA: This journal is registered at the Copyright Clearance Cen- ter, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by now Publishers Inc for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).
    [Show full text]
  • Why Is It So Difficult to Buy a High-Quality Used Car?
    PAGE ONE economics ® Why Is It So Difficult To Buy a High-Quality Used Car? Scott A. Wolla, Ph.D., Senior economic education Specialist GLOSSARY “I discovered that the informational problems that exist in the used car market Adverse selection: The tendency of insurance were potentially present to some degree in all markets.” to be purchased by those most likely to —George A. Akerlof, Nobel Prize winner, 2001 make claims. Asymmetric information: A situation where one party to a market transaction has more information about a product or Are you in the market for a vehicle? During the 2007-09 recession, new- service than the other. The result may be vehicle sales plunged to their lowest levels in nearly 30 years. They have an over- or under-allocation of resources. since fully recovered as people replace their aging vehicles with shiny new Moral hazard: The risk that one party to a cars, trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles. Prices of new vehicles, howev er, transaction will engage in behavior that is undesirable from the other party’s view. are at all-time highs, leading many buyers to look for used vehicles. It can Premium: The fee paid for insurance be a challenge, though, for buyers to figure out whether they are getting protection. a good deal. The seller generally knows far more about the vehicle. Even with careful examination, the buyer still likely won’t know everything the seller knows. When one party knows more about the product than the other party, there is “ asymmetric information .” In the case of a used car, the seller has more information—and the advantage.
    [Show full text]
  • Hospital Network Competition and Adverse Selection: Evidence from the Massachusetts Health Insurance Exchange
    Hospital Network Competition and Adverse Selection: Evidence from the Massachusetts Health Insurance Exchange Mark Shepard* Harvard Kennedy School and NBER February 29, 2016 Abstract I study the role of adverse selection when health insurers compete on an increasingly important benefit: coverage of the most prestigious (and expensive) “star” hospitals. Using data from Massachusetts’ pioneer insurance exchange, I show evidence of substantial adverse selection through a channel theoretically distinct from standard selection on medical risk. Plans that cover star hospitals attract consumers with high costs because when sick, they tend to use the expensive star providers. This selection persists even with risk adjustment, which does not offset higher costs driven by hospital choices rather than medical risk. I show evidence of adverse selection through this mechanism using consumer choices across plans that differ in star hospital coverage and using switching choices after a plan drops the star hospitals from network. I then estimate a structural model of insurer competition to study the welfare and policy implications of selection. I find that adverse selection creates a strong incentive not to cover the star hospitals. Simple modifications to risk adjustment can preserve coverage, but I find that they do little to improve net welfare because of offsetting costs of greater use of the star hospitals. These results illustrate the challenge of addressing adverse selection in settings where it is linked to moral hazard. * Post-Doctoral Fellow in Aging and Health Care at NBER (2015-16) and Assistant Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School (2016+). Email: Mark_Shepard@hks.harvard.edu. I thank my Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Io of Selection Markets
    THE IO OF SELECTION MARKETS Liran Einav Stanford University & NBER Amy Finkelstein MIT & NBER Neale Mahoney Stanford University & NBER July, 2021 Working Paper No. 21-040 NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE IO OF SELECTION MARKETS Liran Einav Amy Finkelstein Neale Mahoney Working Paper 29039 http://www.nber.org/papers/w29039 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 July 2021 We thank the editors for including this chapter in the volume. We are grateful to Ignacio Cuesta, Katja Hofmann, and Chuan Yu for very helpful comments on earlier drafts. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2021 by Liran Einav, Amy Finkelstein, and Neale Mahoney. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. The IO of Selection Markets Liran Einav, Amy Finkelstein, and Neale Mahoney NBER Working Paper No. 29039 July 2021 JEL No. G22,L00,L13 ABSTRACT This is an invited chapter for the forthcoming Volume 4 of the Handbook of Industrial Organization. We focus on "selection markets," which cover markets in which consumers vary not only in how much they are willing to pay for a product but also in how costly they are to the seller.
    [Show full text]
  • Agency Revisited Working Paper
    Agency Revisited Ramon Casadesus-Masanell Daniel F. Spulber Working Paper 10-082 Copyright © 2010 by Ramon Casadesus-Masanell and Daniel F. Spulber Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Agency Revisited† Ramon Casadesus-Masanell* Daniel F. Spulber** January 2004 The article presents a comprehensive overview of the principal-agent model that emphasizes the role of trust in the agency relationship. The analysis demonstrates that the legal remedy for breach of duty can result in a full-information efficient outcome eliminating both moral hazard and adverse selection problems in agency. The legal remedy motivates agents to behave in a trustworthy fashion and principals to place their trust in agents. In contrast to the standard agency model, a complete description of the principal-agent relationship cannot be based on explicit incentives alone but must recognize implicit and exogenous incentives for trust behavior that derive from the legal, social, and market context. These incentives reduce the need to rely on explicit incentives, allowing the principal and agent to reduce transaction costs by using incomplete contracts. _________________________ †The authors thank Jeffrey Bergstrand, Charlotte Crane, Deborah DeMott, Thomas Gresik, John Oldham McGinnis, Robert H. Sitkoff, Marc Ventresca and David E. Van Zandt for very helpful comments. We also thank participants in seminars at the Northwestern University Law School and at Notre Dame. *Harvard Business School and IESE. rmasanell@hbs.edu. Casadesus-Masanell gratefully acknowledges financial support of Fundación BBVA and the Harvard Business School Division of Research.
    [Show full text]
  • Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard in Anonymous Markets
    Dis cus si on Paper No. 13-050 Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard in Anonymous Markets Tobias J. Klein, Christian Lambertz, and Konrad O. Stahl Dis cus si on Paper No. 13-050 Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard in Anonymous Markets Tobias J. Klein, Christian Lambertz, and Konrad O. Stahl Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server: http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp13050.pdf Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar. Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard in Anonymous Markets Tobias Klein, Christian Lambertz, and Konrad Stahl Non-technical summary Informational asymmetries abound in anonymous markets, such as those opening in the internet almost every day. In particular, before trading takes place, the typical buyer does not know whether her anonymous counterpart, namely the seller she is confronted with, appropriately describes and prices the trading item; and whether he conscientiously conducts the transaction, so she receives the item in time and in good condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Skimming from the Bottom: Empirical Evidence of Adverse Selection When Poaching Customers
    Skimming from the bottom: Empirical evidence of adverse selection when poaching customers Przemys law Jeziorski∗ Elena Krasnokutskayay Olivia Ceccariniz January 22, 2018 Abstract This paper studies implications of competitive customer poaching in markets with het- erogeneous and privately known costs to serve. Using individual-level driving records from a large car insurer in Portugal, we show that poached customers generate 21% higher cost to serve than observationally equivalent own customers. Screening on all available consumer characteristics and behavioral variables, with the exception of switching behavior, can only alleviate 50% of adverse selection. We develop and estimate an empirical framework based on a dynamic churn model that rationalizes this adverse selection. Our estimates imply that risky customers have more incentive to search and switch, and that the population of switch- ers is itself heterogeneous in riskiness. We propose a new Consumer Lifetime Value measure that accounts for switchers' risk endogeneity. We apply this measure to study actuarial pricing and insurance contract design. Keywords: customer poaching, adverse selection, unobserved heterogeneity, cost to serve, behavior-based pricing, structural model ∗Corresponding author. University of California at Berkeley; przemekj@berkeley.edu, 2220 Piedmont Ave, Berkeley CA 94720, USA yJohns Hopkins University; ekrasno1@jhu.edu, Wyman Park Building 555, 3400 N. Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA zPorto Business School; olivia.ceccarini@gmail.com, Avenida Fabril do Norte 425, 4460-312 Matosinhos, Portugal 1 2 1 Introduction In many industries consumers are differentially expensive to serve. A canonical example is provided by insurance markets, where consumers differ by their inherent riskiness. However, differential cost to serve is present in many other industries, such as credit markets, services and retail.
    [Show full text]
  • Adverse Selection Models with Three States of Nature*
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Directory of Open Access Journals Theoretical and Applied Economics Volume XVIII (2011), No. 2(555), pp. 33-46 Adverse Selection Models with Three States of Nature* Daniela MARINESCU Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies daniela.marinescu@csie.ase.ro Dumitru MARIN Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies dumitru.marin@csie.ase.ro Abstract. In the paper we analyze an adverse selection model with three states of nature, where both the Principal and the Agent are risk neutral. When solving the model, we use the informational rents and the efforts as variables. We derive the optimal contract in the situation of asymmetric information. The paper ends with the characteristics of the optimal contract and the main conclusions of the model. Keywords: adverse selection; asymmetric information; informational rent; optimal contract. JEL Codes: C61, D82, D86. REL Code: 7J. * Ideas in this article were presented at the Symposium „The global crisis and reconstruction of economics?”, 5-6 November 2010, Faculty of Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies. 34 Daniela Marinescu, Dumitru Marin Introduction One of the most important researches of economic theory from the last 40 years is represented by the theory of incentives. This theory has been developed also as a necessity to explain some failures of the classical models from microeconomic theory. The information became an extremely costly good in real economies and the asymmetric information between contractual partners may generate some distortion of the results with respect to optimal Pareto results. Asymmetric information is present in almost all economic activities: there are incentives to work hard, to produce high quality goods, incentives to invest or to save, to reveal the correct characteristics to other partners.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Information, Adverse Selection and Market Failure
    Lecture Note 17: Private Information, Adverse Selection and Market Failure 14.03/14.003, Microeconomic Theory and Public Policy, Fall 2010 David Autor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology December 1, 2010 1 Private Information, Adverse Selection and Market Failure Where there is private information, there is an incentive for agents to engage in strategic • behavior. For example, if you are selling a product, and your buyer knows the distribution of product quality but not the quality of the individual product that you posses, how much should the buyer be willing to pay? The intuitive answer might be the expected value of the product, or perhaps the certainty equivalent of this lottery. But this answer ignores the an important consideration: The choice of what product you • sell may depend on what price the buyer offers. And the price that the buyer offers may depend on what product she thinks you’ll sell at that price. The equilibrium outcome in which buyer and seller expectations are aligned– that is, the buyer gets what she wants at the price she offers– may be far from effi cient. 1.1 A bit of background Economists had historically conjectured that markets for information were well-behaved, • just like markets for other goods and services. One could optimally decide how much information to buy, and hence equate the marginal returns to information purchases with the marginal returns to all other goods. In the 1970s, economists were brought to reevaluate this belief by a series of seminal • papers by Akerlof, Rothschild-Stiglitz, and Spence. These economists all went on to share the 2001 Nobel for their work on the economics of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Imperfect Competition in Selection Markets∗
    Imperfect Competition in Selection Markets∗ Neale Mahoney† E. Glen Weyl‡ December 27, 2013 Abstract Many standard intuitions about the distortions created by market power and selection are re- versed when these forces co-exist. Adverse selection may be socially beneficial under monopoly, for example, and market power may be beneficial in the presence of advantageous selection. We develop a simple, but quite general, model of symmetric imperfect competition in selection mar- kets that parameterizes the degree of both market power and selection. We derive basic compara- tive statics verbally and illustrate them graphically to build intuition. We emphasize the relevance of the most counter-intuitive effects with a calibrated model of the insurance market and empiri- cal results from the credit card industry. Among other policy insights, we show that in selection markets four core principles of the United States Horizontal Merger Guidelines are reversed. Keywords: selection market, imperfect competition, mergers, risk-adjustment, risk-based pricing JEL classifications: D42, D43, D82, I13, L10, L41 ∗Weyl acknowledges the financial support of the Ewing Marion Kauffman foundation which funded the research assis- tance of Kevin Qian. We are grateful to André Veiga for helpful comments. All errors are our own. †Chicago Booth and NBER. Email: neale.mahoney@gmail.com ‡University of Chicago. Email: weyl@uchicago.edu 1 Introduction Adverse selection, or the tendency of the costliest consumers to also be most eager to enter the mar- ket, can limit the power of a monopolist to raise price, as higher prices entail facing costlier con- sumers. As a result, standard policies that aim to reduce the degree of adverse selection, such as risk-adjustment or risk-based pricing in insurance markets, may allow firms to charge higher prices and thereby reduce consumer, or even social, surplus.
    [Show full text]
  • Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard in Online Markets
    Market Transparency, Adverse Selection, and Moral Hazard∗ Tobias J. Klein Christian Lambertz Konrad O. Stahl† June 2015 Abstract We study how an improvement in market transparency affects seller exit and continuing sell- ers’ behavior in a market setting that involves informational asymmetries. The improvement was achieved by reducing strategic bias in buyer ratings and led to a significant increase in buyer satisfaction with seller performance, but not to an increase in seller exit. When sellers had the choice between exiting—a reduction in adverse selection—and staying but improving behavior—a reduction in moral hazard—, they preferred the latter. Increasing market transparency led to better market outcomes. JEL classification: D47, D83, L15. Keywords: Anonymous markets, adverse selection, moral hazard, reputation mechanisms, market transparency, market design. ∗We would like to thank the participants of the 2013 ICT Workshop in Evora, the 2nd MaCCI day in Mannheim, the 11th ZEW ICT Conference, the 2013 EARIE conference in Evora, the Fifth Annual Conference on Internet Search and Innovation at the Searle Center in Chicago, the Eighth bi-annual Postal Economics conference on E-commerce, the conference on Digital Economy and Delivery services in Toulouse, the Fifteenth CEPR/JIE Conference on Applied Industrial Organization in Athens, seminar participants at Copenhagen, Hebrew, Tel Aviv and Tilburg universities, the DIW, Copenhagen Business School, and in particular, Ying Fan, Jin-Hyuk Kim, Shaul Lach, John List, Volker Nocke, Martin Peitz, David Reiley, Martin Salm, Steve Tadelis, John Thanassoulis and Stefan Weiergräber for helpful comments. Fabian Kosse provided excellent research assistance. We are grateful to the editor, Ali Hortaçsu, and two referees for very detailed comments, as well as to Michael Anderson and Yossi Spiegel for unusually detailed and insightful suggestions on how to improve an earlier version of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Principal-Agent Problems in Fisheries
    42 Principal-Agent Problems in Fisheries NIELS VESTERGAARD 42.1. INTRODUCTION has a landlord monitoring the activities of a tenant farmer. In regulated industries, the regulator acts as A “principal-agent problem” arises whenever an principal, designing an incentive scheme or contract individual or public agency or regulator (the prin- for the fi rms (agents) whose activities are being reg- cipal) has another person, offi ce, or fi rm (the agent) ulated. From the insurance sector, the policyholder perform a service on its behalf and cannot fully might change behavior after becoming insured. observe the agent’s actions, inducing information The applications of principal-agent theory to asymmetry. In economics, the traditional example is renewable ocean resources, including fi sheries, the potential confl ict of interest between ownership have been diverse and in some instance super- and management, but any delegation of authority fi cial. To understand this, let us look at the area may give rise to this problem. The classic example of regulation. The economics of regulation can be in fi sheries is the relationship between vessel owner divided into two main approaches: public interest and crew members. Principal-agent theory focuses theory and interest group theory. In public inter- on mechanisms to reduce the “problem” of asym- est theory, the regulations promote overall public metric information, such as defi ning and selecting interest, while interest group theory views the pur- the “right” types of agents, implementing incentive pose of regulation as promoting narrow actions contracts, including instituting forms of monitor- and interests of certain groups in the society.
    [Show full text]