Reform Could Accelerate Shift to High-Deductible Plans

August 24, 2010 J Roberts

There may be hope for consumer directed high deductible plans afterall. Read the following article to learn more.

By Charlotte Huff, Workforce Week Magazine

High-deductible plans, with or without an attached savings account, may provide the best flexibility to meet the coverage limits—both minimum and maximum—inherent in the health reform legislation.

Before health care reform, benefits consultants worried that the insurance overhaul would sideline consumer-directed plans or perhaps jettison them altogether. Their latest sentiment: modest to substantial optimism.

As with any post-reform plan, large employers should carefully structure their consumer-directed options, typically a high-deductible policy paired with another account, such as a health savings account. Ideally, coverage would adhere to a middle ground, meeting the reform legislation’s minimum coverage requirements without becoming sufficiently generous to trigger the so-called “Cadillac,” or excise, tax, beginning in 2018.

But the myriad ways in which these high-deductible plans can be structured likely leave them well situated in the post-reform world, benefits consultants say. Along with the plans’ flexible design, they also cite other reform-related changes as being influential, such as the new limitations on another type of account, the flexible spending account.

“Frankly, these consumer-directed plans are pretty well-positioned,” says Michael Thompson, a principal in the health and welfare practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers. “I think what we’ll find is not a slowing of the process, but actually an acceleration of the process to consumer-directed and high-deductible plans in general.”

Before President Barack Obama signed health reform into law in March, consumer-directed plans were already gaining some traction among large employers, according to an annual survey conducted by the National Business Group on Health and Towers Watson. By 2011, 61 percent of employers intend to offer a consumer-directed plan; the option was provided by only 33 percent in 2006. Meanwhile, nearly half (46 percent) of those who offered a consumer-directed plan in 2010 reported enrollment of at least 20 percent.

As more employees signed up, the cost per employee declined, according to the same survey, which involved 507 employers each with at least 1,000 employees. Annual health costs per employee totaled $6,848 when at least half of the employer’s workforce enrolled in a consumer-directed plan, compared with $7,743 per employee when enrollment fell below 20 percent.

Employers are paying closer attention than ever before to those types of bottom-line statistics, says Alexander Domaszewicz, national health consumerism lead for Mercer. “None of the cost issues and very few of the quality and delivery issues have been meaningfully addressed in the reform legislation,” he says.

Cost pressures
As employers look ahead, one worry is the excise tax. Effective in 2018, a 40 percent tax will be applied to any of a health plan’s total value that exceeds the premium threshold—$10,200 for individual coverage or $27,500 for family coverage.

But Jay Savan, a senior consultant at Towers Watson, says other economic constraints just a few years off will be more influential than the excise tax in encouraging employers to consider a high-deductible plan.

Beginning in 2014, once the health insurance exchanges are established, employers will have an incentive to keep employees’ premium contributions below 9.5 percent of their adjusted gross income if workers earn less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, Savan says. Otherwise, the employer will have to pay a penalty—typically $3,000 annually per such employee who receives coverage through a health exchange—for surpassing that premium ceiling.

That’s a relatively low bar, Savan says. For a family of four, 400 percent of the federal poverty level is $88,200 annually. If that penalty were in effect today, that employee couldn’t pay more than nearly $8,400 annually toward health coverage.

“The plans that are most likely to allow the employer to stay under that [premium] threshold are going to be high-deductible health plans,” Savan says. “Whether they are HSA-compatible or not, it’s going to be those plans, by virtue of simple mathematics.”

The average annually family health premium, as of 2009, reached nearly $13,400, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. But the employee’s contribution averaged just $3,515.

For companies with lower-income employees, though, a relatively low premium can still exceed 9.5 percent of adjusted gross income, Savan says. Add in rising health costs and that likelihood increases, he says.

Establishing guardrails
In a sense, the new health reform law contains inherent guardrails that employers should pay attention to, Domaszewicz says. On the lower end, they should make sure that coverage isn’t classified as inadequate—defined as covering less than 60 percent of allowable costs. But as their plans’ total value increases, employers also need to stay sharp, he says.

“They can’t design them [the plans] too rich because they will eventually hit this excise tax,” he says. “They can’t design them too poor or too skinny because they are not going to meet this 60 percent requirement in terms of actuarial value.”

The reform law’s move to cap FSA contributions at $2,500 annually, beginning in 2013, also may spur employees themselves to take a second look at health spending accounts, says Chantel Sheaks, a principal in Buck Consultants’ National Technical Resources Group. A parent who is facing a large bill for braces, for example, may decide to bypass the FSA and instead contribute a higher amount to an HSA-linked insurance plan, she says.

Another reform-related wrinkle, Thompson adds, is that contributions to savings accounts, including an FSA or HSA, will be counted toward the plan’s total value in determining whether it qualifies for the excise tax. “It’s only a matter of time before FSAs become less common with employers,” he says.

In the years ahead, employers may adopt other measures, such as limiting company or employee contributions to HSAs, to prevent hitting the excise tax threshold, Savan says. But the Towers Watson consultant, a longtime proponent of consumer-directed plans, remains bullish that their time has finally arrived.

By 2013, nearly all large employers will be offering the insurance option, Savan predicts. And more employees will buy in, doubling the current median enrollment of 15 percent to 30 percent or more, he says.

Employers’ Medical Costs to Rise in 2011

July 7, 2010 J Roberts

Looks like medical costs are expected to trend well above inflation for 2011. In addition, consumer out-of-pocket costs have increased as employers continue to shift the cost onto employees.

Medical costs are expected to increase by 9 percent in 2011, according to a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Although the increase is down 0.05 percent from the 2010 growth rate, it still is expected to outpace the rate of inflation. For the first time, the majority of the American workforce is expected to have a health insurance deductible of at least $400 as more employers return to indemnity-style cost sharing by raising out-of-pocket limits, replacing co-payments with co-insurance and adding high-deductible health plans.

Hospital and physician costs, which make up 81 percent of premium costs, are the biggest inflators of the 2011 medical cost trend. Hospitals shifting costs from Medicare to private payers and employers is seen as the top reason for higher medical cost trends. In 2011, Medicare will reduce payment rates to hospitals for the first time after seven years of increases that almost matched or exceeded inflation increases. Some hospitals that benefitted from higher payments in 2008 and 2009 may be able to manage this type of cut by tapping their reserves, but many hospitals are likely to shift more costs to commercial payers during their negotiations, according to the report.

In addition, increasing consolidation among physician practices is expected to increase their bargaining power. Payers expect to see more negotiating power and higher prices in the short term, but efficiencies created by consolidation will moderate future rate hikes.

The report findings are based on a survey of more than 700 employers from 30 industries and interviews with health plan actuaries.

Study says US cancer costs almost double in 20 years – but not because of pricey treatments

May 19, 2010 J Roberts

Here’s some news that’s probably not too surprising: Cancer costs have doubled over the past twenty years. As with any serious disease, usually the drugs and the various treatment associated with fighting the disease are expensive; however in this study researchers conclude that rising cost were the direct result of the increased number of cancer patients.

ATLANTA (AP) —

The cost of treating cancer in the United States nearly doubled over the past two decades, but expensive cancer drugs may not be the main reason why, according to a surprising new study.

The study confounds conventional wisdom in several respects. The soaring price of new cancer treatments has received widespread attention, but the researchers conclude that rising costs were mainly driven by the growing number of cancer patients.

The study also finds cancer accounts for only 5 percent of total U.S. medical costs, and that has not changed in the last few decades.

“I will say I’m a bit surprised,” said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society, who said he would have expected the proportion of cancer costs to rise.

The researchers also found that private insurers now cover a greater share of cancer treatment costs — about 50 percent — while patients’ out-of-pocket costs have fallen over the past two decades.

Though taken aback by some of the findings, Lichtenfeld and other experts did not dispute the study, which compared medical cost data from the late 1980s to that of the early 2000s. But they said the picture surely has changed in the last several years.

The study is being called the first to combine national cancer costs for all types of payers and see how they’ve changed over time. The figures are reported in 2007 dollars.

It found that cancer treatment costs rose from nearly $25 billion in 1987 to more than $48 billion by the end of 2005.

The rise in costs is mainly due to an increase over 20 years in how many cancer patients there are, said the study’s lead author, Florence Tangka of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The researchers used data from national telephone surveys done in 1987 and from 2001 through 2005, which gathered information on medical conditions as well as who paid the bills. More than 164,000 people were surveyed.

The study did not offer precise estimates of how the number of people treated for cancer changed from the late 1980s to the early 2000s. But it showed dramatic increases in the number of cancer cases covered by the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs. Medicare, which covers the elderly and disabled, has consistently covered about a third of the nation’s cancer costs. Medicaid accounts for only 3 percent.

The U.S. population is aging, and older people tend to get cancer at higher rates, Tangka noted.

Better and more advanced treatments mean more people with cancer are remaining alive, so the spending increases represent money well spent, said Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy researcher at Emory University who has focused on the cost of health care.

“It seems like we’re buying increases in survival,” Thorpe said.

The study is being published in Cancer, a medical journal of the American Cancer Society.

The researchers also found:

—The percentage of cancer costs from inpatient hospital care fell from 64 percent to about 27 percent. A shift to less expensive outpatient care, along with cost containment efforts by large health insurers, helped keep down increases in the costs per patient, the authors said.

—The proportion of cancer costs paid by private insurance rose from 42 to 50 percent.

—The proportion of costs paid out of pocket by patients — including copayments and deductibles — dropped from 17 percent to 8 percent.

Those last two findings surprised some experts.

Recent government reports have found that the percentage of Americans with private health insurance has been shrinking and recently hit its lowest mark in 50 years. Yet the study found that the proportion of cancer treatment costs paid by private insurance rose.

And companies have been tightening or cutting employee benefits, causing out-of-pocket costs to go up for many patients. Yet the study found that the proportion of bills paid by patients declined.

That last finding in particular was striking, said Lichtenfeld, the cancer society’s deputy chief medical officer.

He alluded to widely reported increases in personal bankruptcies prompted by medical bills. “There’s no question that the out-of-pocket costs for some patients have risen dramatically,” Lichtenfeld said.

The rising price of certain treatments also should be acknowledged, he said.

The challenge of rising prices was recognized by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), which last year released its first guidelines counseling cancer doctors on how to talk to patients about deciding between less expensive chemotherapy drugs made more sense than newer, more expensive products.

The study did not add in the cost of diagnostic tests and scans, which are cost drivers. And the data does not include the last five years, which saw some extremely pricey cancer drugs come on the market.

The picture may have changed since the study’s data was collected and the U.S. economy deteriorated, said Dr. Neal Meropol, a Case Western Reserve University cancer expert who worked on the ASCO guidelines.

Newer treatments along with wider testing are driving up the overall cost of cancer care, Meropol said.

“My concern is that costs are getting shifted to patients and there is a potential for increasing disparities” in cancer care, he added.

Health Costs Are Crushing Small Businesses

November 3, 2009November 4, 2009 J Roberts

WSJ. – The Magazine from the Wall Street Journal

By MARY LANDRIEU

Read about Senator Landrieu and her commitment to small business owners to make health care more affordable to the 27 million small businesses in this country. As a service provider to many small companies, Medical Cost Advocate is all too familiar with the many challenges faced by small businesses in navigating the health care maze. Small business owners should reach out to consumer directed health care service providers as self service allies for their employees.

After years of struggling with costs that were eating into his bottom line, David White, a small business owner in Maine, recently dropped health insurance for himself and his employees. It was a nerve-wracking decision. “I just hope my people or I don’t get sick,” he told a small business advocacy group.

Louise Hardaway wasn’t willing to take the same risk. Health-care costs forced her to close her small business in Tennessee. Factor 4 Life was, ironically, a business that helped people navigate the health-insurance system!

Unfortunately, these stories are not unique. As chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I hear about a lot of business owners hit hard by health-care costs. These costs not only eat into profits, they prevent small businesses from hiring more workers.

Small firms, defined as less than 500 employees, pump almost a trillion dollars into the economy each year, create two-thirds of our nation’s new jobs annually, and account for more than half of America’s work force. But too much of their money is going toward high health premiums that are increasing faster than the prices of the products and services they provide—four times faster than the rate of inflation since 2001, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Nationwide, small firms will spend $156 billion on health premiums this year. In place of those high premiums, small business owners could employ 10 million additional workers—the entire state of Michigan—at minimum wage for a year.

Unless something is done, annual health-care costs for small firms over the next 10 years are expected to more than double to reach $339 billion in 2018. As those costs increase, the burden will get heavier and force many of them to lay off workers. The Small Business Majority, an advocacy group, estimates that over the next decade about 943,000 small business jobs will be lost.

Today, there are already 14.9 million people unemployed in America. We don’t need to add to those ranks, instead we need to help small businesses create more jobs. The path we are on now is unacceptable and unsustainable.

Small businesses want to provide health coverage to their workers, but when faced with cutting employees or cutting insurance, the insurance is the first to go. In 1993, 61% of all small companies offered health coverage. Today that number is less than 38%.

Employers who can afford to provide health coverage are providing it because they are competing with big businesses that offer quality health-care choices for top talent. Businesses not offering coverage are often small, low-wage firms that can’t afford it. There are 27 million small businesses in America, 22 million of which are sole proprietorships. And it is often sole proprietors that have trouble affording health insurance.

Insurance premiums for sole-proprietors are up 74% since 2001. This has made health insurance even harder to afford. And while big firms can deduct health premiums on their federal tax returns, under current tax rules sole proprietors often cannot. This forces them, on average, to pay nearly $2,000 more a year in taxes than they otherwise would have to pay. That is money they could use to buy new computer equipment or other things necessary to keep a business running efficiently.

The additional tax burden that sole proprietors have to pay has not yet been addressed by proposed health-care reforms. To keep our economy healthy we must keep our small businesses healthy, and that begins with stable, affordable health insurance.

I am committed to working with my Senate colleagues and the Obama administration to ensure that the health-care reforms our small businesses desperately need are passed. Small businesses—and all Americans—can’t go another pay check without meaningful reform.

Ms. Landrieu, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Louisiana.