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.

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.

Many employers are worried that the new healthcare reform will raise the cost of care and that the increased cost will be passed on to employees. Read more.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS • May 25, 2010

Big companies think health care reform will hike their costs, but most expect to continue offering subsidized benefits to workers, according to a new Towers Watson study.

The benefits consultant surveyed 661 companies this month and found that 94 percent of those that responded believe the reform law passed by Congress earlier this year will raise costs. Eighty-eight percent plan to pass the increases on to employees, and 74 percent anticipate reducing health benefits and programs.

That could mean insurance co-payment or deductible hikes or more high-deductible plans, said Mark Maselli, who heads Towers Watson’s North American Health and Group Benefits unit.

He added that companies will likely continue to offer “medical coverage that individuals are used to having” at least for the foreseeable future. Nearly three quarters of the companies responding to the survey said they expect to continue providing subsidized coverage for active employees.

Maselli said benefits could change as the reform law unfolds over the next few years. But he saw no need for employees to panic.

“You’ve got coverage now, you’re likely to continue to have it through your employer, and it’s something you want to monitor over time,” he said.

Some companies could see small reform-related cost hikes next year, after the start of provisions that ban lifetime maximums for benefits and extend coverage of young adult dependents on parental plans to age 26. Maselli and other benefits experts say the size of this hike will depend greatly on the company and the employees it covers.

Towers Watson’s national survey spanned several industries and involved companies with a median size of 5,600 employees.

It also found that big companies generally plan to continue offering health promotion and wellness programs. But 43 percent of employers that offer retiree benefits expect to reduce or eliminate them.

Containing health care costs was an essential or high priority for 96 percent of survey respondents, who were asked how important specific reform goals were to their organization.

More than a month after the passing of landmark healthcare reform, Americans are confused more than ever over the legislation; some are down right angry. A recent poll by Kaiser Health illustrates the sentiments felt by Americans across the country. Read on to learn more.

Kaiser Health

The majority of Americans are confused about how the newly enacted health care law will impact them, according to a new Kaiser Health Tracking Poll released Thursday.

“People are struggling to understand how the law will affect them and their families and to separate fact from political spin,” said Kaiser President and CEO Drew Altman.

Nearly a month after its passage, the public remains deeply split over the legislation: 46 percent view it favorably and 40 percent don’t, with another 14 percent undecided. Further demonstrating the division: 31 percent expect the bill to help them, 32 percent expect the bill to hurt them and 30 percent don’t expect it to affect them at all.

The partisan divide is stark: 77 percent of Democrats support the law, while 79 percent of Republicans oppose it. Independents tend to side with Republicans, with 46 percent opposing the law while 37 percent support it.

The poll showed, however, that a clear majority of Americans support many specific provisions that go into effect this year. For example: 86 percent are in favor of tax breaks for small businesses that offer coverage to their employees. Also, 81 percent are in favor of stopping insurance companies from dropping someone who has a major health problem. Even the provision that allows children to stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26, which drew fire from some on the right, was supported by 74 percent of those surveyed.

Americans experience a wide variety of emotions when reacting to the new law – but, according to the poll, confusion wins out over anger and relief. On the whole, 55 percent of the public said they’re “confused” – with 45 percent “disappointed” and an equal number “pleased.” Forty-two percent said they were “anxious,” and 40 percent said they’re “relieved.”

There’s anger, too.

Thirty percent of Americans say they’re “angry” about the law – and 16 percent of that group describe themselves as “very angry.” According to Kaiser, the specific grievances of that 30 percent broke down this way: “9 percent did not like the way the policymaking process worked, 7 percent did not like the final content, and 12 percent did not approve of either.”

The poll, which surveyed 1,208 adults in mid-April, produced one fascinating nugget sure to raise eyebrows in newsrooms around the country: Regardless of how they felt about health care reform, more Americans turned to cable news shows for their updates than any other news source. Asked to choose their “most important” source of news when following the legislation, 36 percent said cable news channels and their Web sites – easily topping the competition of network news (16 percent), newspapers (12 percent), family and friends (10 percent) and radio (9 percent).

Republicans were more likely to watch cable news, while Democrats preferred network news programs.

Who’s to blame for rising healthcare costs, insurers or providers, such as doctors or hospitals?  Depending who you ask, either side places the blame on the other.  Whether it’s insurers’ trying to meet the bottom line and remain profitable or physicians and hospitals attempting to increase revenue and improve their margins, one thing is for certain: Healthcare costs continue to rise.

Read on to determine where the blame lies.

By AVERY JOHNSON

A battle over who to blame for rising health-care costs is escalating, as groups seek to pin the problem on each other and say none of the health-care legislation under consideration does enough to solve it. U.S. spending on health care reached $2.5 trillion in 2009, according to federal estimates. It is expected to jump to $4.5 trillion in 10 years.

Insurers contend that they must pass on ever-higher bills from hospitals and doctors. Hospitals say they are struggling with more uninsured patients, demands by doctors for top salaries, and underpayments from Medicare and Medicaid.

And doctors say they are strong-armed by insurance monopolies and hampered by medical malpractice costs.

In the rush to point fingers, few solutions are emerging.

“It’s always someone else’s fault,” said Robert Laszewski, president of health-care consulting firm Health Policy & Strategy Associates. “There is not an incentive for these people to cooperate because the game they are all playing is getting a bigger piece of the pie.”

The issue has come into sharp relief as WellPoint Inc. has sought to defend its plan to raise some prices in California by up to 39%.

In a hearing Wednesday on Capitol Hill, WellPoint Chief Executive Angela Braly singled out dominant hospital systems for demanding 40% rate increases and drug companies for roughly 20% profit margins.

A WellPoint spokeswoman said that at least one hospital had asked for a 220% payment increase.

Many Democrats have cited lack of competition among insurers as a driver of higher prices. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted to repeal a longstanding insurance-industry exemption from federal antitrust laws. The bill now heads to the Senate, where its future is less certain.

Doctors complain of a lack of competition among insurers, as well.

A report by the American Medical Association this week argues that 500 insurance-company mergers in the past 12 years have led to markets dominated by one or two health plans.

This year, two insurers control 70% of the market in 24 states, up from 18 last year, the report said.

“There is no other company for doctors to go to” when an insurer comes to them with terms that they find unfavorable, said AMA President James Rohack. But insurers say is it doctors and hospitals that have gotten too powerful through consolidation.

A study published Thursday in the journal Health Affairs appears to back up their point, saying that insurers are weakened in their negotiations by their inability to exclude prominent doctors and hospitals from networks.

Authors from the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan research group, conducted 300 interviews with California doctors and hospital and insurance executives in late 2008.

The study said two big networks of providers now dominate the northern part of the state: Sutter Health owns two dozen California hospitals and medical centers, and Catholic Healthcare West runs 33 hospitals.

In addition, the study said, doctors who are increasingly banding together for negotiating power are commanding yearly double-digit payment increases.

Hospitals and doctors shot back that the study was largely anecdotal and said integration improved efficiency.

Catholic Healthcare West said it took on $1.5 billion in bad debt from government underpayments last year; its size, it added, makes it possible to achieve some savings.

Sutter Health said increases in its reimbursement rates from private insurers have been in the single digits.

“We are doing our best to keep costs down because these health-care premium increases are not sustainable,” said Bill Gleeson, vice president of communications a Sutter Health.

Read how one state’s governor is not only reviewing insurance rates, but also hospital rates as he and the state look for ways to curtail excessive increases.

If nothing else, Governor Patrick’s proposal for state review of both hospital and insurance rates should start an overdue discussion of how to keep health cost increases from smothering economic growth in the state.

The course advocated by the state’s payment reform commission last year – a move away from fee-for-service payments – may be the long-term solution. But in the meantime, both employers and individuals are facing increases well in excess of the national rate of medical inflation. Forcing both insurers and hospitals to lay out their contract proposals before a rate-oversight body would at least end the shadow play that has kept the public in the dark about wide differences in hospital costs.

Also, Patrick’s proposed requirement that insurers at least offer small businesses a plan with a network lacking some higher-cost hospitals would ensure that companies have that more affordable option. In the past, consumers and their employers have been wary of plans that lack access to marquee hospitals, but years of spiraling health costs have probably changed some minds. Let the debate, or “conversation,’’ as Patrick calls it, begin.