Paying for health care? Less is more.

December 8, 2009December 9, 2009 J Roberts

The saying “less is more” holds true these days, especially when it comes to health care. Though long, the following article accurately depicts the issues many small employers and individuals face each year when purchasing health insurance. Perhaps you are experiencing the same issues in your annual insurance enrollment.

Philadelphia Inquirer – Online
Stacey Burling

Talk to just a handful of small businesses about buying health insurance over the last few years, and the narrative quickly starts to sound familiar.

It boils down to paying more and more for less and less. Oh, and passing on more of the cost to employees, who aren’t exactly rolling in raises these days.

Increasingly, small businesses have given up, fueling the rise in the ranks of the uninsured and the debate in Washington about how to change health insurance so that more of us can afford it.

Consider Bob & Ron’s World Wide Stereo, which has stores in Montgomeryville and Ardmore. Owner Bob Cole has been providing insurance for 31 years.

At the beginning, he said, “I paid for it 100 percent. I did their families. I did everything. Over the years, I’ve cut back that support because of the extraordinary expense.” Cole still provides family coverage for longtime workers, but new ones pay the full cost of dependent coverage.

Over the last five years, the company’s contribution for health insurance has grown from 0.7 percent of total revenue to 1.1 percent. During those years, while the overall inflation rate never rose above 4 percent, the company’s health insurers – first Aetna Inc. and now HealthAmerica – came asking for rate increases of 23 percent, 27 percent, 9 percent, 20 percent, and, this year, 38 percent.

As a result, Bob & Ron’s, which covers 41 employees, has reduced what its health policy covered almost every year. It switched insurers in 2008.

“Every little change you make to save a little money reduces the quality of the coverage your employees get,” said Patrick Moran, director of operations, finance, and human resources.

Insurers say their prices track increases in medical costs, which are rising because of wider use of expensive technology and drugs.

While 98 percent of companies with more than 200 workers still provide insurance for employees, the percentage at smaller firms has fallen, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Most of that drop is in the smallest companies, those with fewer than 10 workers. In 2001, 57 percent of them provided insurance. Only 46 percent do now.

Small businesses say cost is their biggest insurance problem. According to Kaiser, small businesses actually pay slightly less per employee for insurance, but the plans often have higher deductibles. In testimony before a Senate committee, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said small companies paid as much as 20 percent more for comparable plans because of insurers’ higher marketing and administrative costs, including the cost of figuring out how to avoid insuring companies with sick employees. Small firms often pay broker commissions, which amount to 4 percent to 11 percent of premiums. Local brokers said commissions here, which are paid by insurers, were more like 4 percent to 5 percent. Some insurers plan to switch to flat fees.

Price volatility in the small-business market is what most concerns Randy Rohrbaugh, a Pennsylvania deputy insurance commissioner. Because many insurers base prices on the age and health of employees, one serious illness or a few birthdays can make a big difference in the bill.

Pages: 1 2

Tallying the Cost to Bring Baby Home

May 7, 2009May 12, 2009 Doug

Another informative article from the Wall Street Journal about the lack of pricing transparency and how difficult it is for consumers to get an estimate of charges, understand the cost, and their portion of the payment.

By ANNA WILDE MATHEWS

Bringing my newborn son home was a joy. Figuring out the hospital bill wasn’t.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles provided excellent care and thoughtful treatment during my uncomplicated traditional delivery in December. Then the invoices started coming. The hospital sent one for me, and another for my baby. The doctors billed separately. The total charge for three days: $36,625.

People lucky enough to have good health insurance, including me, don’t have to come up with such sums. Insurers typically pay a lower, negotiated price for hospital care, and patients pay a portion of that amount. Even people without insurance often get sharp discounts from list prices on their hospital bills.

Still, consumers have a big financial stake in the cost of care. People who get health insurance through their workplaces have been paying higher premiums in recent years, and more people have been enrolling in plans that include very high deductibles. A recent survey by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans found that two-thirds of employers are increasing, or considering an increase in, workers’ deductibles, co-insurance and co-payments.

It’s important for patients to get good information about what they have to pay and why. That’s not easy. Before my son was born, it was difficult to figure out what I was going to owe. And I struggled after the birth to learn whether the amounts I was told to pay were appropriate. I could have done a better job at calculating some of my costs. But often, information wasn’t available, or was hard to decipher.

My own health plan is a so-called PPO, or preferred-provider organization, which means I pay less when I use doctors and hospitals that have contracts with Aetna Inc., the insurer that administers my employer’s coverage. For hospital and surgery services from these providers, I am on the hook for 15% of Aetna’s negotiated price. I also have a $400 annual deductible. Fortunately, there is a $2,000 cap on how much I might have to spend out of pocket each year for my in-network care.

From the Wallet

Having a Baby? How to Prepare for the Hospital Bill

My research started before my due date, with a call to Aetna. I asked the customer-service representative how much the birth would cost me, and she didn’t answer the question directly. She did confirm that Cedars-Sinai was in my network. Aetna’s Web site offered typical maternity costs for other Los Angeles-area hospitals, but there was no such listing for Cedars-Sinai.

The Aetna representative did say that I had $1,370 remaining before I reached my out-of-pocket maximum for the year. So I decided to set aside $1,370 toward maternity costs, and hoped that I’d have some of that left over for a crib.

It didn’t turn out that way. In fact, I owed a total of $2,118.90, a sum I arrived at only after adding figures from five separate documents. Why the difference? Along with dark hair and blue eyes, my son was born with his own $400 deductible. Also, the maximum annual out-of-pocket charge for the two of us was $4,000, double what mine alone had been. I should have re-read the fine print of my plan.

Before paying the bills, I wanted to double check them to make sure I’d actually received the services I was billed for. At my request, Cedars-Sinai sent itemized invoices, with 14 items listed for my baby and 34 items for me, not including doctors’ fees.

Those charges I could decipher seemed stunningly high. A “Tray, Anes Epidural” cost $530.29. (After inquiring, I learned this was the tray of sterile equipment used to give me an epidural anesthetic injection.) An “Anes-cat 1-basic Outlying Area” was billed at $2,152.55. (I was told this was the cost of the hospital’s resources related to the epidural.) These items were in addition to the separate anesthesiologist’s charge of $1,530 for giving the epidural. Even though the pain-killing epidural shot felt priceless during my 20 hours of labor, I was amazed that its total cost could run so high.

To decipher other items, I decided to check out consumer services that advise people about medical bills. Candy Butcher, chief executive of Medical Billing Advocates of America, wondered why the hospital listed a price of $2,382.92 for my recovery, when I hadn’t had a Caesarean section. It turned out the charge was for the 90 minutes I spent in the birthing room after my delivery. I recalled lying exhausted there while a kind nurse checked my vitals and cleaned me up. Important help, for sure, but was it really worth that much money?

(more…)

Health Care Costs Increase Strain, Studies Find

January 19, 2009January 29, 2009 admin 1 Comment

In a recent article by New York Times reporter Reed Abelson, she highlights findings of two studies describing the financial toll that health care is placing on working families – even those with health insurance. The studies, by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Center for Studying Health System Change, were completed earlier in 2008 before the economy and financial markets reached their current state of crisis. It is clear that many Americans are struggling with medical costs including those that are insured, under-insured or uninsured. With the continuing degradation of the economy, these financial struggles are only getting worse, necessitating that consumers take steps to control costs themselves

By REED ABELSON

Even as Washington and Wall Street debate the best way to avert an economic disaster, increasing numbers of Americans are struggling with another financial crisis: the growing burden of unpaid medical bills.

Two studies released Wednesday provide further evidence of the toll that health care is increasingly placing on working families, even for those with health insurance. And as employees are paying more medical expenses out of their own pockets, they are having a harder time coming up with the money.

The studies, by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Center for Studying Health System Change, were completed earlier this year before the financial markets reached their current state of crisis. But policy analysts say the findings underscore the mounting additional strain that medical care is placing on working Americans.

“The problems people are having paying for health care and health insurance are a central dimension of the economic and pocketbook concerns right now,” said Drew E. Altman, the president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit health research group that conducts an annual survey of employer medical benefits.

The studies, policy analysts say, underscore the need for the government to address the growing unaffordability of care, despite the distraction — and cost to taxpayers — of a proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial sector.

“This makes clear the cost of doing nothing is high and growing,” said Len Nichols, a health economist at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan policy group in Washington that advocates universal medical coverage.

While policy analysts acknowledge that finding any new money to expand coverage may prove difficult, some also say the terms of the debate may be changing as policy makers and the public rethink their positions on the need for regulation and the role of the government in industry — including the health care system.

“We can now imagine a government takeover that we could not imagine before,” Mr. Nichols said.

Although inflation in insurance premiums has moderated in recent years, the Kaiser survey found that employees were continuing to spend more in medical costs, including their share of yearly insurance premiums. Employees are paying an average of $3,354 in premiums for family coverage, more than double the amount they paid in 1999. The total cost for family coverage now averages $12,680 a year, up 5 percent from 2007.

And as people are paying more, they are finding the higher expense less affordable. In the study by the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change, based on its national survey of households, nearly one of every five families had problems paying medical bills last year. More than half of these families said they borrowed money to pay these expenses, and nearly 20 percent of those having difficulty said they contemplated declaring personal bankruptcy as a result of their medical bills.

The study estimates that 57 million Americans live in families struggling with medical bills, and 43 million of those have insurance coverage. “It’s hitting both the insured and the uninsured, and it’s hitting middle-class families,” said Karen Davis, the president of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research organization that financed the study.

Because they are already in debt over their medical care, some families start forgoing treatments, even for serious or chronic conditions, Ms. Davis said. By deciding not to fill a prescription for high blood pressure medication or failing to go to the doctor for diabetes, they are at risk of incurring more serious and costly problems that can land them in the emergency room.

“It’s a serious health problem and it’s a serious economic problem,” she said.

As the nation has moved toward greater cost-sharing of medical expenses, “what we’re seeing is families are not in a position to shoulder that financial risk,” Ms. Davis said.

While large employers remain a strong and generous source of coverage, the Kaiser study pointed to the widening divide between employees working for big companies and those at companies with fewer than 200 employees.

Virtually all large employers offered coverage, but only 62 percent of small companies did. People working for big companies were also paying less — about $3,000 a year for family coverage — compared with $4,100 for those in small companies.

Faced with the choice of dropping coverage altogether, many small companies have opted for health plans that ask employees to pay much more in the form of deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. One in three workers in small businesses has annual deductibles of $1,000 or more, in contrast to one in five in the previous year’s survey.

“We still strongly believe health care is an economic issue for small business, not only to the owners but to their employees; they are both paying for it,” said Amanda Austin, a lobbyist for the National Federation of Independent Business, a Washington group that represents small employers.