It’s Cost Shifting Plain And Simple

What’s the catch? The glowing reports of everyone liking private exchanges is a fairy tale.

Private exchanges exist only to provide camouflage for employer cost-shifting. Employees don’t like choice, they are afraid of choice; of making the wrong decision.

Employers save money only one way, they set the amount of their contribution toward each employee’s coverage and then increase it at a rate less than the actual increase in the cost of coverage. Employees pick up the difference and this a growing percentage of the total cost each year.

And that’s the truth😜

More Health Plan Choices At Work. What’s The Catch?

by khnandrewv

Until recently, John Henry Foster, an equipment distribution firm based in Eagan, Minn., offered its employees only a couple of health plans to choose from. That’s common in companies across America.

“They just presented what we got,” says Steve Heller, a forklift operator who has worked at John Henry Foster for 15 years.

But these days the company’s employees have dozens of choices. And something else is new: Each worker now receives money from the company (from $350 to $1,000 a month, depending on whether Heller and his co-workers are buying insurance for a single person, a couple or a family) to buy a health plan.

Employees are then directed to an online exchange — a private, secure website that offers the selection of plans for side-by-side comparison. Workers can choose high-deductible plans with relatively low monthly premiums or they can pay more each month to have more of their care and medications covered.

Just as before, the company determines the insurance companies listed, and the scope of the treatments and procedures covered by each plan.

Three years after the switch, Heller says he’s happy with his insurance and the exchange. The company’s managers are happy with it, too.

Jan Hawkins, one of the co-owners of the equipment distribution firm John Henry Foster, says going to a private exchange has given the company much more flexibility in budgeting for health care costs.

In 2012, the company was facing a big increase — 30 percent — in its costs for employee medical benefits. “Unlike anything we had ever seen before,” says Jan Hawkins, co-owner of John Henry Foster.

So, Hawkins says, company leaders decided to sign up for a private exchange run by Medica, a Minnesota insurer, because they could choose to spend only about 10 percent more on health benefits in the first year, instead of that 30 percent increase projected under the old plan.

Since then, the firm has increased the money it gives employees to spend on health insurance by roughly 10 percent each year.

“I think it definitely helps us from an operational budget standpoint,” Hawkins says. “We’ve just seen only positives from this.”

Despite the benefits to a company’s bottom line, and more choices for employees, John Henry Foster is one of relatively few businesses using a private health insurance exchange. According to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation, last year only 3 percent of employers (excluding the federal government) insure their employees this way. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the Foundation.)

But it’s a trend that some experts expect to pick up steam soon. “I would say a majority of the companies will switch to private exchanges,” says Dr. Jim Bonnette, with the health care consulting firm The Advisory Board Co.

Bonnette thinks that employees under this sort of system are likely to choose high-deductible plans and be much more motivated than in the past to search out the best value for care. That could finally force consumers to pay attention to the price of health care, he says, a goal that has eluded health policymakers for decades.

“We can’t afford the trend — that is, the increase in cost per year — that we currently have,” Bonnette says. “So how do you get people to think differently about how they receive care and what it costs?”

But shopping wisely for health care is almost impossible says Sara Collins from the Commonwealth Fund, a health policy research organization.

It’s often difficult for consumers to find out how much a doctor visit or a particular procedure costs. And, Collins says, studies show that people with high-deductible plans often forgo care to save money; they’ll even avoid free preventive care because they don’t understand how their health insurance works.

“The idea that people who have such low understanding of what is included or excluded in their deductible can actually go out and price-shop for their health services, I think, really stretches the imagination,” she says.

Kim Wagner, a benefits consultant, says predictions of a big shift to private exchanges are overblown. Although some employers are adding more health plan choices for workers, she says, giving employees a set amount to buy insurance on an exchange could alienate workers and increase turnover.

The practice of giving employees a limited amount of money to purchase their own insurance has been around for a while, Wagner says, but “hasn’t taken off, particularly in the large employer space, because truly it’s a cost shift.”

Workers suddenly asked to shoulder more of the cost of their health care may be more likely to look for a job elsewhere — opting for companies that offer better benefits.

Nonetheless, firms that now use generous benefits as a selling point to lure top talent may soon be more motivated to set up these sorts of private insurance exchanges, too. Beginning in 2018, companies that offer health insurance packages the government deems too generous will start having to pay a 40 percent tax on those packages.

It’s called the “Cadillac” tax (meant to reduce health spending by discouraging luxurious health plans), but it is not as exclusive as its name implies. Towers Watson, a consulting firm, predicts that 48 percent of employers will have to pay the tax in its first year.

2 comments

  1. Again, you miss the point. It is there in the article. The employer could have continued the dual choice option and increased spending (both employer and employee spending) by 30%. Say the employer was paying $400 a month, the employee $100 a month (20%), for a plan with a $500 deductible, then 80% coiinsurance, $1,000 out of pocket maximum. So, they could have continued the $500 deductible option by increasing employer spend to $520 and the employee spend to $130. Instead, they chose to offer a variety of different options – some with more point of purchase cost sharing (probably more than one option that qualifies individuals to save in a Health Savings Account for future medical expenses). In doing so, they retargeted their health spend to increase “only” 10% – say to $440 instead of $520. Employees got a series of choices where they could probably continue a $500 deductible option by increasing their contribution from $100 a month to $210. Or, they could probably reduce their contribution below $100 a month, say to $80 a month, for an option with a deductible of say $1,300 a month, while allocating some of the difference in contributions, $130 a month, to a HSA for future expense.

    The whole point of the article was that the status quo was NOT sustainable.

    If you think the employer can just pony up 30% increases year over year, you must think they have an ability to shift those costs to the customer. That may be true in a regulated environment, such as for government or utilities or other similar employers, or where there is a relatively inelastic demand by customers for services (such as hospitals and physicians), but in the commercial world, the world where there is competition, particularly global competition, it just isn’t so. Finally, two or three more such increases and the employer must then pay the Cadillac tax on the portion that exceeds the arbitrary, inadequately indexed dollar thresholds that take effect in 2018. I know of no employer who is willing to both spend big bucks on coverage AND pay the cadillac tax. Expect employers to cut health spending as needed to remain below the dollar threshold, and to reallocate their total rewards spending. Private exchanges are nothing more than a formalization of dual choice strategies that have been in place for decades – with the added twist of some assistance in employee decision-making.

    Only the idiots in the Obama Administration and the current Republican leadership in Congress think that people will continue to spend more, and more and more on health coverage. Remember many Republicans want to eliminate the tax preference for employee and employer contributions towards health coverage – dramatically increasing the out of pocket costs for working Americans. The idiots who gave us PPACA actually incorporated in their projections that employers would reduce health spend AND allocate it back as increased, taxable wages. What the idiots don’t seem to know is that even if employers took that action, they would have to:
    – Spend 30% – 45% more than the nominal contribution towards medical coverage so as to have the same net, after-tax effect on take home pay as a tax preferred contribution for medical coverage, AND
    – Allocate most, if not all of the increased spending, based on the coverage elections that would have been made in prior years (not pay for performance, not as a function of salary, not as a function of the current coverage election, etc.) – exposing the true cost of low wage positions with health coverage – where individual health coverage adds 15+% to the cost of a job, and family coverage adds 25+% to the cost of a job.

    Employers WILL change their coverage, or they WILL change their employment levels. Bottom line, we are talking jobs here!

    Like

    1. I think you miss my point. Slice it anyway you want, but by going to a defined contribution approach it is cost shifting big time and now set in permanent place. How many and do you know who have received a 30% increase in the last ten years. Something else was going on. Offering choice via an exchange with lower cost plans for both parties is fine, but clearly going to DB is a major change in the deal. Do you think any of the future savings will be passed on in the form of cash as the CBO assumes for the 40% tax. I think not. The DB doesn’t just allow an employer to cope with costs it changes the entire compensation deal.

      Like

Leave a Reply