CALIFORNIANS TO SEE STEEP HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM INCREASES, STATE POWERLESS TO STOP HIKES

Real Estate & Investment Business –

July 08: More than 1,500,000 Californians will face health insurance premium increases on July 1 averaging 3% to 17.4%, according to state filings. Some patients with Aetna small business plans will see premium increases as high as 92.5%.

California insurance regulators need the power to protect consumers and deny such steep rate increases when they are found to be excessive or unjustified, said Consumer Watchdog.

AB 52 (Feuer) would require a health insurance company to get approval from the elected insurance commissioner before a health insurance rate hike takes effect subjecting health insurance rates to the same strict rate regulation that auto, homeowners and other insurance companies already comply with in California. The bill will be heard in the California State Senate Health Committee Wednesday afternoon. The majority of states have the power to reject unreasonable premium hikes, but not California.

“This is an urgent life and death issue for those Californians who face premium hikes Friday as high as 92% because California is one of the few states without premium regulation,” said Consumer Watchdog president Jamie Court. “Californians will continue to be held hostage by profiteering health insurance companies if the legislature does not grant the elected insurance commissioner the power to stop arbitrary and unnecessary premium hikes.”

In recent years, health insurance policyholders in California have seen repeated massive rate hikes like those set to take effect Friday, even as medical inflation has been fairly low. Consumer Watchdog noted that these skyrocketing rates have coincided with ever-increasing profits for insurance companies. According to Aetna’s rate filing, the insurer’s 2011 company-wide rate of return is projected to be 24.8%.

A Consumer Watchdog report finds that rate regulation is necessary to hold down excessive rate increases. In Massachusetts for example, where health reform including an exchange and individual mandate was the model for national reform, insurance premiums continued to increase until prior approval rate regulation was enacted to moderate increases.

AB 52 would require insurance companies to get permission before implementing any hike and would allow state regulators to deny or modify rate changes determined to be excessive. Health insurers that are increasing rates on patients July 1 have lobbied heavily against the bill, which authorizes insurance regulators to review insurance company profits and overhead as well as company projections about future health care costs in order to determine whether or not to allow a rate increase to take effect. It also allows members of the public to challenge proposed rate hikes.

AB 52 would enact rules for health insurance that are similar to Proposition 103, which requires the Insurance Commissioner to regulate auto and other property/casualty insurance rates. Under those rules California motorists have saved more than $62 billion on their auto coverage over the past two decades, according to a 2008 report by the Consumer Federation of America.

0

WILL EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH INSURANCE SURVIVE OBAMACARE?

Forbes.com – 

June 20: Reports from consulting firms don’t normally make national news.

Then again, most such reports don’t predict the downfall of the American health care system.

Earlier this month, the consulting group McKinsey projected that tens of millions of Americans could find themselves without the health coverage they now get through their employers.

McKinsey is only the latest organization to make a mockery of President Obama’s solemn promise to Americans that “if you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period.”

Make no mistake: ObamaCare is behind many employers’ plans to drop their health insurance. At the beginning of the year, McKinsey surveyed more than 1,300 employers from a variety of industries about the effects of the president’s health law. They found that ObamaCare was primed to blow up much of the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.

According to the survey, almost a third of employers say they will “definitely or probably” put a halt to their health coverage by 2014.

Among employers that know the most about Obama’s health law, the number is even higher. More than 60 percent say that they will pursue alternatives to conventional job-based coverage.

McKinsey isn’t the first to sound the death knell of employer-sponsored insurance. The Congressional Budget Office Congress’s official economic scorekeeper estimated that four million individuals would lose their employer-provided health insurance over the next decade thanks to ObamaCare.

And last year, the Urban Institute, a center-left think tank, released a report saying that “droves of employees potentially tens of millions are likely to shift out of employer-provided insurance” because of ObamaCare.

With 156 million Americans currently enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a mass exodus from employer-coverage would represent a sea change in American health care.

Why are so many employers who currently offer health insurance eyeing the exits? The law makes coverage prohibitively expensive. Indeed, McKinsey says that dropping coverage “will make sense for many companies.”

McKinsey reports that “at least 30 percent” of employers would actually see economic gains from ceasing coverage and that’s even if they provided employees with higher salaries or additional benefits to compensate for the loss.

As the study explains, ObamaCare “imposes several new requirements on employer benefits,” including mandates to cover an employee’s dependents up to age 26 and eliminating caps on annual and lifetime reimbursement limits.

Each of these changes will add to the cost of insurance. Plans that offer the most coverage, meanwhile, will be subject to new taxes. The law attempts to discourage employers from dropping coverage by forcing those who do to pay a penalty. But given ObamaCare’s expensive new mandates, many will find it cheaper to pay the $2,000 per-employee fine and rid themselves of the burden of providing insurance. But that burden won’t vanish entirely. Instead, it will fall to taxpayers.

Most employees who lose their employer-sponsored coverage will be dumped into the new government-run health insurance “exchanges” created for individuals and small businesses by ObamaCare.

These exchanges will offer taxpayer-funded subsidies to families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line currently almost $90,000 a year for a family of four. More people losing their employer-sponsored insurance means more people in the exchanges, and more people in the exchanges means more subsidies.
Back to top


0

MCKINSEY DEFENDS SURVEY ON HEALTH CARE LAW’S EFFECTS

New York Times –

June 21: After nearly two weeks of widespread queries and criticisms, McKinsey & Company, the management consulting firm, posted on Monday the questionnaire and methodology of an online survey it had released that was denounced by the White House and others for contending that nearly a third of employers would definitely or probably drop coverage for employees when provisions of the health care law took effect in 2014.

The White House responded on Monday night. “As we learn more, it’s become clear that this one flawed study from McKinsey is truly an outlier,” Nancy-Ann DeParle, an assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff, said in a blog post.

The White House initially pointed to forecasts by the Congressional Budget Office and other experts whose estimates were much smaller in terms of whether employees would lose some or all coverage. For example, an Urban Institute study to be released on Tuesday suggests that employees in small businesses may receive more coverage, not less.

McKinsey also came under fire for not providing access to the survey’s authors, and for not publishing the questions, the types of employers taking part or the survey methodology.

In posting “details regarding the survey” on its Web site Monday, McKinsey acknowledged that its survey was “not comparable” to the studies by the budget office, Urban Institute or others using economic modeling.

Rather, it surveyed business owners using an online panel. McKinsey said it paid for the survey by Ipsos, a French marketing firm, “to capture the attitudes of employers,” large and small.

In addition, McKinsey seemed to be trying to address the criticisms by the White House and others, asserting that its report was not intended to be predictive.

McKinsey’s explanations did not satisfy Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and several from the House who have inquired.

“This report is filled with cherry-picked facts and slanted questions,” he said in a statement. “It did not provide employers with enough information for them to make honest choices and fair evaluations. Rather than correct the major deficiencies in their report, McKinsey has chosen to again stand by their faulty analysis and misguided conclusions.”

Several other reports have focused on small businesses, the group having the hardest time dealing with rising medical costs.

The latest, issued on Tuesday, is by the Urban Institute, a Washington research center. Its study, based on analysis of Census Bureau and Department of Health and Human Services surveys, estimates that employer coverage will increase modestly for workers and their dependents in firms with 50 or fewer employees.

By contrast, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was an economic and health policy adviser to Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign, predicts that more than 35 million people will lose employer insurance. “We figured they would all end up in the exchanges,” the state-sponsored insurance agencies to be set up under the new law, he said in a telephone interview.

Over all, including all employers, analyses by a number of widely cited researchers predicted little or no change in employer-sponsored insurance in 2014. They include the Congressional Budget Office, RAND, Lewin Associates and Mercer.

John Arensmeyer, a small business advocate who supports the law, the Affordable Care Act, calls it “a big step in the right direction.” But he said a poll by his group, Small Business Majority, found that more than half of respondents did not know what was in the law.

“Once they learn about tax credits and the exchanges option, they are more inclined to participate,” Mr. Arensmeyer said.

Linda J. Blumberg, an Urban Institute researcher, said, “Contrary to a lot of statements that have been made in the press and elsewhere, the impact of the law on small employers is going to be positive in great degree.”

Mr. Holtz-Eakin headed a group of 105 economists who filed a brief supporting the lawsuit by Republican officials from 26 states seeking to have the Affordable Care Act overturned.

But Dr. Blumberg said Virginia and other states with Republican governors were working to set up the exchanges. Republicans prefer state exchanges to the probability of a federal version if they do not act.

Four states, West Virginia, Maryland, California and Colorado, recently passed laws to establish exchanges, and similar bills have been adopted by one house in a number of other states, she said. “There is a division between what the attorneys general are doing and what governors’ offices are doing,” she said.

Gerry Harkins, who owns a small construction company in Atlanta and is a spokesman for the National Federation of Independent Business, said he would try to “figure out a way to game the system.”

“This whole plan is really slanted toward large employers,” he said. Firms with 10 and fewer workers also should benefit. “The burden falls in the middle.” His company, Southern Pan Services, had 1,200 employees before the economic crisis. It now has “under 100,” he said.

He is considering splitting his company into two units to get under 50 employees each and reduce the $3,000 penalty, for each worker, he will face for his current health plan, which is entirely paid for by employees. Joseph R. Antos, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, criticizes the health law. He says it has “too much central direction and not enough appreciation for our fiscal situation.”

But Mr. Antos said large employers, who cover the majority of American workers, would probably wait several years after 2014 to see how the new system worked before deciding what to do. Those with union contracts will take much longer, he said.

He said the many variables in the law made predictions difficult. “Whatever you assume, is what you get out of it,” he said.

0

1 in 3 Employers Will Drop Health Benefits After ObamaCare Kicks In, Survey Finds

Thirty percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering health benefits to their employees once the main provisions of President Obama’s federal health care law go into effect in 2014, a new survey finds.

The research published in the McKinsey Quarterly found that the number rises to 50 percent among employers who are highly aware of the health care law.

McKinsey and Company, which identifies itself as a management consultant that aims to help businesses run more productively and competitively, conducted the survey of more than 1,300 employers earlier this year. It said the survey spanned industries, geographies and employer sizes.

But the White House pushed back against the report.

“This report is at odds with the experts from the Congressional Budget Office, the Rand Corporation, the Urban Institute and history,” a senior administration official told Fox News. “History has shown that reform motivates more businesses to offer insurance.”

“Health reform in Massachusetts uses a similar structure, with an exchange, a personal responsibility requirement and an employer responsibility requirement,” the official said. “And the number of individuals with employer-sponsored insurance in Massachusetts has increased.”

According to the survey, at least 30 percent of employers would reap financial gain from dropping coverage even if they compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries.

The research notes among the new provisions that could spur employers to drop coverage is a requirement of all employers with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits to every full-timer or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker. Those benefits must also be equal between highly compensated executives and hourly employees – requirements that will increase medical costs for many companies.

The findings are distinct from a Congressional Budget Office estimate that only about 7 percent of employees who currently get health coverage through their jobs would have to switch to subsidized-exchange polices in 2014.

The group said its variance is so wide because shifting away from employer-sponsored insurance “will be economically rational” given the “law’s incentives.” The law requires employers to make insurance available to low-income or part-time employees that may not otherwise be covered.

The research found that contrary to what many employers feared, most employees — more than 85 percent — would stay at jobs that no longer offered health benefits. But 60 percent of employees would expect higher compensation.

0

Mckinsey & Company Survey – How US health care reform will affect employee benefits

The shift away from employer-provided health insurance will be vastly greater than expected and will make sense for many companies and lower-income workers alike.

JUNE 2011 • Shubham Singhal, Jeris Stueland, and Drew Ungerman  – McKinsey & Company

Source: Healthcare Payor and Provider Practice

US health care reform sets in motion the largest change in employer-provided health benefits in the post–World War II era. While the pace and timing are difficult to predict, McKinsey research points to a radical restructuring of employer-sponsored health benefits following the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Many of the law’s relevant provisions take effect in 2014. Our research suggests that when employers become more aware of the new economic and social incentives embedded in the law and of the option to restructure benefits beyond dropping or keeping them, many will make dramatic changes. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only about 7 percent of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) will have to switch to subsidized-exchange policies in 2014. However, our early-2011 survey of more than 1,300 employers across industries, geographies, and employer sizes, as well as other proprietary research, found that reform will provoke a much greater response.

 

  • Overall, 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI in the years after 2014.

 

  • Among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than 50 percent, and upward of 60 percent will pursue some alternative to traditional ESI.

 

  • At least 30 percent of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries.

 

  • Contrary to what many employers assume, more than 85 percent of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employer stopped offering ESI, although about 60 percent would expect increased compensation.

In this new world, employers must quickly examine the implications of health care reform on their benefit and workforce strategies, as well as the opportunities and risks that reform generates. Of course, the type and extent of the changes employers make will vary by industry, collective-bargaining agreements, and other constraints. Most employers, however, will find value-creating options between the extremes of completely dropping employee health coverage and making no changes to the current offering. Even employers that intend to provide benefits similar to those they currently offer can take no-regrets moves, like tailoring plans to maximize what their employees will value most about ESI after 2014. Employers pursuing more radical changes will have to rethink benefit packages for higher-income employees.

And all employers must continue to keep in mind their employees’ health and wellness needs, even as insurance coverage levels evolve. To serve employers, insurers must retool their business models to provide more consultative support during the transition and develop innovative approaches to support employers’ new benefit strategies (see sidebar “Implications for health insurers”). For employers and insurers, success after 2014 will require a better understanding of employee and employer segments, and the development of the right capabilities and partnerships to manage the transition.

A transformed employer market

Health care reform fundamentally alters the social contract inherent in employer-sponsored medical benefits and how employees value health insurance as a form of compensation. The new law guarantees the right to health insurance regardless of an individual’s medical status. In doing so, it minimizes the moral obligation employers may feel to cover the sickest employees, who would otherwise be denied coverage in today’s individual health insurance market. Reform preserves the corporate tax advantages associated with offering health benefits—except for high-premium “Cadillac” insurance plans.

Starting in 2014, people who are not offered affordable health insurance coverage by their employers will receive income-indexed premium and out-of-pocket cost-sharing subsidies. The highest subsidies will be offered to the lowest-income workers. That reduces the social-equity advantage of employer-sponsored insurance, by enabling these workers to obtain coverage they could not afford on today’s individual market. It also significantly increases the availability of substitutes for employer coverage. As a result, whether to offer ESI after 2014 becomes mostly a business decision. Employers will have to balance the need to remain attractive to talented workers with the net economics of providing benefits—taking into consideration all the penalties and tax advantages of offering or not offering any given level of coverage.

What the law says

Health care reform imposes several new requirements on employer health benefits. Some changes will be incremental; for example, annual and lifetime limits on care must be eliminated, and coverage must be offered to dependents through age 26. Plans with premiums above certain levels will be subject to a so-called Cadillac tax.1

Other requirements are game changing and could prompt employers to completely reconsider what benefits they offer to employees. Reform requires all employers with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits to every full-timer or to pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker (less the first 30). The benefits must provide a reasonable level of health coverage, and (except for grandfathered plans) employers will no longer be able to offer better benefits to their highly compensated executives than to their hourly employees. These requirements will increase medical costs for many companies. It’s important to note that the penalty for not offering coverage is set significantly below these costs.

Reform also offers options for workers to obtain affordable insurance outside the workplace. Individuals who are unemployed or whose employers do not offer affordable health coverage, and whose household incomes are less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level,2 are eligible for subsidies toward policies they will be able to purchase on newly created state insurance exchanges. These will offer individual and family policies of set benefit levels (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) from a variety of payers.

The subsidies will cap the amount lower- and middle-income individuals and families will have to spend on health coverage, to 9.5 percent of household income for those at 400 percent of the federal poverty level and less for those at lower income levels. The subsidies will keep the cost of insurance coverage from the exchanges below what many employees now pay toward employer-sponsored coverage, especially for those whose earnings are less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

A bigger effect than expected

As we have seen, a Congressional Budget Office report estimated that only 9 million to 10 million people, or about 7 percent of employees, currently covered by ESI would have to switch to subsidized exchange policies in 2014. Most surveys of employers likewise show relatively low interest in shifting employees from traditional ESI.

Our survey found, however, that 45 to 50 percent of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to ESI in the years after 2014. Those alternatives include dropping coverage, offering it through a defined-contribution model, or in effect offering it only to certain employees. More than 30 percent of employers overall, and 28 percent of large ones, say they will definitely or probably drop coverage after 2014.

Our survey shows significantly more interest in alternatives to ESI than other sources do, for several reasons. Interest in these alternatives rises with increasing awareness of reform, and our survey educated respondents about its implications for their companies and employees before they were asked about post-2014 strategies. The propensity of employers to make big changes to ESI increases with awareness largely because shifting away will be economically rational not only for many of them but also for their lower-income employees, given the law’s incentives.

We also asked respondents questions about their philosophy and decision-making process for benefits: the current rationale for providing them, which employee group is considered most when decisions are made about them, their importance in the respondent’s industry, and geography. These questions prompted the respondents to consider all the factors that will influence their post-2014 decisions. Finally, we tested options beyond dropping coverage outright. These alternatives will probably be the most effective ones for delivering a reasonable return on a company’s investment in benefit programs after 2014. We would therefore expect to see a level of interest higher than that generated by surveys asking only about plans to keep or drop ESI.

Estimating the employer impact

As employers consider their post-2014 options, they should take a dynamic view by considering how competitors for talent—other employers—and their own employees will react. Many employers will be shifting from ESI; it is unlikely that only one company in an industry or geography will move away from it.

ESI might also be less valuable than most employers assume. Among employers not likely to drop ESI, three of the top five reasons given (and two of the top three) were concerns about talent attraction, employee satisfaction, and productivity. Among employees, however, McKinsey consumer research found that more than 85 percent—and almost 90 percent of higher-income ones—say they would remain with an employer that dropped ESI. Overall, employees value cash compensation several times more than health coverage. Further, many younger employees also value career-development opportunities and work–life balance more than health benefits.

Making employees whole

To make up for lost medical insurance, most employers that drop ESI will increase employee compensation in other ways, such as salary and other benefits like vacation time, retirement, or health-management programs. Employees think this will happen: 60 percent say they would expect employers to increase compensation if health benefits were dropped, our consumer research shows. Employers will do so to remain competitive for talent. In addition, ensuring some level of employee health, through higher investment in wellness programs or another mechanism, helps to maintain the productivity of workers.

Our research found that even with conservatively low assumptions about eligibility for employee subsidies, at least 30 percent of employers would benefit economically by dropping health coverage even if they make employees 100 percent whole. Employers could do so by paying sufficient additional compensation to help employees purchase coverage with no other out-of-pocket expense (less subsidies for employees with household incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level), the additional individual income and payroll taxes levied on the increased compensation, and the $2,000 government penalty.

But we believe that employers will not have to provide 100 percent of the value of the lost insurance. If so, even more employers will benefit economically. In the course of our research, we interviewed executives at Liazon, a defined-contribution-benefit company. They have found that when employees are shifted from coverage selected by their employer to a defined-contribution plan (under which the employer provides a fixed dollar amount and the employee can choose how to allocate it among a variety of benefit options), about 70 percent of employees choose a less expensive health plan.

Higher-income employees, who won’t receive subsidies and would have to pay the entire cost of individual coverage out of pocket, will have a greater need to be made whole. These higher-income employees, however, are also more likely to be satisfied with partial compensation or with tax-advantaged forms of compensation, such as retirement benefits.

The need to make employees whole will decrease over time. Subsidies will be awarded to keep premiums below a fixed percentage of an individual’s household income. As long as income continues to rise at a rate lower than that of medical inflation, even employees who initially have to pay more out of pocket toward an exchange policy than they would toward ESI will have less of a difference to make up each year, and the employer will have to provide less to make employees whole.3

This development should not suggest, however, that employers considering the elimination of ESI are focused exclusively on the bottom line, at the expense of their employees. In fact, because of the subsidies, many low-income employees will be able to obtain better health coverage, for less out of pocket, on an exchange than from their employer.

The range of coverage options for employers

In fact, employers indicating that they will definitely or probably drop (or otherwise shift from) ESI post-2014 are more likely to consider the impact on low-income workers (as opposed to other groups of employees) when making benefit decisions and two to three times more likely to view benefits as important to attracting talent in their industry and geography. These employers are considering shifting from ESI not because they don’t care about their employees but because they recognize that, after 2014, ESI may not be the most efficient way to provide health coverage (see sidebar “The range of coverage options for employers”).

Getting ready for the new world

To prepare for 2014, employers should explore the economics of benefits after reform, maximize the return on investment (ROI) of benefit packages, design them for higher-income employees, and satisfy the health and wellness needs of the whole workforce.

Explore the economics of post reform benefits

Employers must understand, at the microsegment level, the eligibility of employees for subsidies under different scenarios—for example, when the employer provides no coverage at all, coverage defined as “unaffordable” (at a premium above 9.5 percent of the household income) for some employees, or coverage above the Cadillac-plan threshold. Companies must determine the cost of making employees whole, using market research tools to find out how much they value ESI, cash compensation for it, and a variety of other benefits. The importance for workers of a given benefit may not correlate directly with its tax-adjusted cost to the employer.

Maximize the ROI of the benefit package

The discussion to date has largely focused on dropping versus keeping coverage, but for most employers the most value-creating options lie in between. Employers should evaluate the economic impact not only of expanding ESI to every employee (compared with dropping it completely) but also of shifting toward part-time labor, allowing lower-wage employees to qualify for exchange subsidies through setting premiums above 9.5 percent of their household income, or adopting defined-contribution models. These intermediate options will probably be the most effective way to secure a reasonable ROI for benefits after 2014, because they enable employers to provide the best possible result for each segment of employees—ESI for higher-income ones not eligible for subsidies, as well as affordable coverage from a subsidized exchange for lower-income workers.

Even employers that continue to offer ESI—and many will, especially in heavily unionized industries where flexibility may be limited—could make no-regrets moves to maximize the ROI of benefits after 2014. Market research tools could be used to determine the preferences of employees, so that the benefit plan emphasizes what they value most while minimizing other features. Other strategies would involve designing plans and enrollment features to reduce costs, pricing plans to promote responsible use, and ensuring that wellness spending produces a positive return. Retiree medical benefits could be shifted from traditional ESI toward Medicare (the federal government’s health care program for those 65 and older) and Medicare Advantage (the private-sector version of the government plan).

Design benefit packages for higher-income employees

Because lower-income employees will be eligible for exchange subsidies if their employers don’t offer them affordable health coverage, we expect that ESI will shift toward higher-income employees. This group will have more demanding expectations for service levels and convenience, as well as different attitudes toward benefits covered.

Employers should tailor their ESI offering to include navigation tools that make it easier to identify and get appointments with high-quality health care providers and fast access to well-informed people for assistance with billing or coverage issues. These services could be provided through partnerships with enterprises that specialize in explaining medical bills and pricing. Higher-income employees may also value preferred-access or other enhanced-care physician services more than a traditional Cadillac ESI plan. These alternative benefits may be more cost effective for employers once the Cadillac tax comes into effect, in 2018.

Satisfy employee health and wellness needs

Even for an employer that drops ESI for all or some employees, maintaining their health, productivity, and satisfaction will continue to be important. Employers could not only expand or refine wellness programs to focus on elements that have a substantive, positive, and documentable impact on employee health and satisfaction but also provide the right incentives to encourage participation. In addition, employers could establish clinics at work sites, or partnerships with local providers or pharmacies so that employees can easily and affordably receive preventative care, such as flu shots or annual physicals. Another way to keep employees satisfied and avoid disrupting their lives would be to partner with a broker or another enterprise that helps them understand their benefit options and enroll for coverage on insurance exchanges.

Employers should recognize that as the ESI market changes after 2014, the system will react dynamically. If many companies drop health insurance coverage, the government could increase the employer penalty or raise taxes. Employers will need to be aware of actions by participants at any point along the health care value chain and prepare to adapt quickly.

Whether your company is poised to shift from employer-sponsored insurance or will continue to offer the same benefit package it does now, health care reform will change the economics of your workforce and benefits, as well as how your employees value coverage. Understanding these changes at a granular level will enable your company to gain or defend a competitive advantage in the increasingly dynamic market for talent.

About the Authors

Shubham Singhal is a director in McKinsey’s Detroit office, Jeris Stueland is a consultant in the New Jersey office, and Drew Ungerman is a principal in the Dallas office.

0

USE OF URGENT CARE GROWING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

California Healthline –

May 13: Los Angeles – Having matured from their early 1970s image of “Docs in a Box,” urgent care centers are growing in popularity with patients who would rather not wait to see a doctor whether in an office or in the emergency department.

Urgent care’s growth is partly attributable to immediate and projected shortages of primary care physicians. California barely meets the nationally recognized standard for the number of primary care physicians. According to a July 2010 California HealthCare Foundation report, only the Orange, Sacramento, and Bay Area regions meet the recommended supply. Los Angeles falls just below.

Long waits in hospital EDs also are a factor in urgent care’s growth. The Hospital Association of Southern California reports that the average wait time for non-emergency care at a Los Angeles County hospital without a fast-track triage system is seven hours.

Only 29% of primary care doctors have after-hours coverage, according to the American Academy of Urgent Care Medicine. Most urgent care centers are open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and see patients usually within 30 minutes, according to industry literature.

AAUCM reports that approximately 8,700 walk-in, stand-alone urgent care centers exist in the U.S. compared with about 4,600 hospital EDs. AAUCM and the Urgent Care Association of America, a trade group, estimate that 400 to 800 new urgent care clinics open each year across the country.

Most urgent care centers accept insurance and all accept cash, according to Lou Ellen Horwitz, executive director of the trade group. The treatment cost is usually comparable to a primary care visit, and less expensive than the ED, according to urgent care organizations. Charges vary according to insurance coverage, and patients are urged to learn about payment options before visiting.

‘A Market in Great Need of Access to Care’

With conditions in Southern California ripe for improved access, urgent care providers have taken notice. Centers in Los Angeles and Orange counties operate under several business models, ranging from independent to hospital-affiliated.

Charges range from $80 to $130 for a “basic” visit; additional diagnostics can cost more, and some centers offer enhanced “tiers” of service.

Doctor’s Express, which bills itself as the nation’s first urgent care medical franchise, plans to open a clinic soon in Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County.

“It’s a market in great need of access to care,” according to Scott Burger, Doctor’s Express co-founder and chief medical officer. “Southern California is no stranger to urgent care, with many successful clinics,” said Doctor’s Express franchise owner Paul Arvanitis.

Concentra, the nation’s largest urgent care provider, continues to see an increase at all of its centers, including those in Southern California. It operates four centers in Los Angeles.

CEO Jim Greenwood said the company aims to deliver “an accessible and welcoming health care experience that meets the needs of busy patients, without sacrificing personal service and quality of care.”

U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, based in Valencia, reports that urgent care business in 13 states is good and that expansion continues. The company has five urgent care centers in Orange County and 16 in Los Angeles.

Although urgent care, also known as episodic care, can help patients with some ailments, it should not replace regular care for chronic conditions, according to U.S. Healthworks Regional Medical Director Alicia Wagner.

“Health care professionals in episodic care may not realize that you’ve gained 10 pounds. We encourage patients to work with a physician for continuing care,” Wagner said.

A 2009 RAND study reported 14% to 27% of ED visits could be handled by urgent care centers or retail clinics, saving up to $4.4 billion annually in health care costs.

“We’re not here to replace the ER,” Horwitz said. “The cut-off is that we won’t treat life- or limb-threatening situations. There is very little we take care of that can’t wait until the next day.” She said that if an emergency patient shows up, clinic staff will call 911.

0

Twentysomethings should weigh health insurance options

Graduates under age 26 can go (or stay) on their parents’ plan, buy an individual policy or be covered by their employer. A little homework will help decide which plan is right.
By Kathy M. Kristof Personal Finance

May 8, 2011

Jay Carey, 23, had the option of going back on his parents’ health insurance plan when he left his last job to become a freelance graphics designer.

But that didn’t mean he should have.His family, and its health insurer, were based in Chicago. That meant a long commute for the Los Angeles-based Carey to see a plan physician. Besides, his dad, who probably would have to pay more for “family” coverage if Carey were to boomerang back onto the policy, wasn’t wild about the idea.

“It seemed like it would be a lot easier for me to get my own plan,” Carey said.

In this post-health reform era, millions of twentysomethings are likely to be faced with a similar choice. Thanks to changes implemented in the nation’s health law, people under the age of 26 can rejoin their parents’ healthcare plans. But they might have better options.

“You can’t just assume that going on your parents’ plan is the best choice,” said Carrie McLean, manager of customer service at EHealthInsurance in Mountain View, Calif. “There are a lot of things to consider.”

How do you wisely evaluate health insurance choices?

• Know your options

There are three good ways to get coverage if you’re a graduate under the age of 26. You can be covered by your own employer; you can go (or stay) on your parents’ plan; or you can buy an individual policy for yourself.

• Consider your health

If you have chronic health issues — diabetes, asthma, a heart condition or bipolar disorder, to name a few — you can make the evaluation simpler by dropping the individual policy option from consideration.

Individual policies are individually “underwritten,” which means they’re cheap when you’re young, healthy and not likely to use much in the way of medical care. Carey, for example, pays just $107 a month.

But they can be prohibitively expensive, if available at all, for those who are on medications and need regular medical attention.

Health insurance offered through employers, on the other hand, is group coverage. Group plans usually charge the same to every member of the group, regardless of whether they’re sick or healthy. That can make group insurance a great deal if you’ve got medical issues. But it can make it comparatively expensive if you don’t — even, in some cases, when the employer is subsidizing the coverage.

That’s one of the reasons that 20-year-olds should shop before joining a group plan. They might pay less on their own.

• Health insurance plans are not all alike

Some provide sweeping coverage, small co-payments and minuscule deductibles, while others restrict coverage for certain conditions (most commonly pregnancy) and require policyholders to pay a significant amount of costs upfront through substantial co-payments and deductibles.

Getting familiar with the details of each plan is pivotal to figuring your annual cost. That cost will hinge on five things: the premiums you pay, your deductible, your co-payments, the cost of filling prescriptions and whether all the health services you need are covered.

Be sure to pay attention to any restrictions the plan might impose on where you get care, particularly if you’re planning to piggyback on an out-of-town parent’s plan.

• Add up the parts

To evaluate your annual cost of coverage, make a grid with the plans you’re considering listed horizontally. On the vertical axis, you’ll want to leave ample space for several categories — premiums, deductibles, co-payments, prescriptions and projected cost for uncovered services. Your final line will be for the section totals.

To figure out your total cost, you have to project your healthcare use over the course of the coming year. Unfortunately, the only cost you know for sure is the monthly premium, so start there. Multiply each plan’s premium by 12 and put the annual cost in the total for premiums.

You’ll have to guesstimate the other costs, based on how often you typically use healthcare and what you use. For example, if you normally see a doctor just once a year for a check-up, you’d examine the plan details to see if that visit is covered completely (which is increasingly common) or whether it would be subject to a deductible and co-payments.

If a plan covers it, note the item and a zero. If the plan wouldn’t cover it or would impose a co-payment or deductible, plug in the appropriate amount. Do the same with any other anticipated healthcare use, from prescriptions to surgeries.

Of course, you can’t foresee all your possible healthcare needs for the year. But this exercise can give you the opportunity to make apples-to-apples comparisons of plan costs. And that can help you make a wise decision about which health insurance plan works best for you.

business@latimes.com

0

Couple’s health insurance choices are bad and worse

Stuart and Cathy Selter recently learned that Anthem Blue Cross is cutting off sales of their plan, which costs them about $1,500 a month with a $2,500 deductible. They can either stick with that plan and pay higher premiums or switch to another plan with a higher deductible.

By David Lazarus – L.A. Times

April 19, 2011

Stuart and Cathy Selter of Agoura Hills were satisfied with their Anthem Blue Cross health insurance plan, which cost them about $1,500 a month in premiums and had a $2,500 deductible.

Now, they say, Anthem is moving the goal posts for their coverage. The insurer informed them recently that because it’s no longer selling their plan, the risk pool is shrinking and their premiums will rise.

Anthem didn’t specify how much the Selters’ rates could increase. But if fewer people are sharing the risk of an insurance plan, costs could rise dramatically.

“A shrinking risk pool will eventually mean that the only people left in the plan will be ones with preexisting conditions,” said John Barrett, a Pasadena health insurance broker. “Over time, rates would go up more than other plans.”

The Selters are in exactly that situation. Cathy is a Type 2 diabetic, making her uninsurable elsewhere — at least until a provision of the new healthcare reform law guaranteeing coverage takes effect in 2014.

So their only choice is to stick with their current insurance plan and face the prospect of rising premiums, or to switch to a different Anthem plan with a higher deductible or out-of-pocket expenses.

“Our choices are bad and worse,” Stuart Selter, 61, told me. “Why? Why do those have to be the only choices?”

Well, because health insurance in this country is primarily a for-profit business, and the Selters, along with about 14 million other people with individual insurance policies, aren’t profitable enough for multibillion-dollar insurance companies. So they’re being steered (“forced” would be another word) into more profitable plans.

“I’m a for-profit, capitalist kind of guy,” said Selter, who works as executive director of an educational foundation. “But I don’t believe you have to gouge the people who keep you in business.”

Peggy Hinz, an Anthem spokeswoman, said only that “sometimes we need to modify the range of plans we offer.”

She declined to discuss the rationale for no longer selling the Selters’ PPO 2500 plan or how high the premiums might rise with a dwindling risk pool.

Barrett, the insurance broker, said that when a plan is closed to new policyholders, most people simply switch to a different plan with the same or a different insurer.

“The only people who suffer are the ones with preexisting conditions,” he said. “They can’t go anywhere else.”

Like the Selters, who suddenly find themselves being squeezed.

“Anthem isn’t doing this because it’s evil,” Barrett said. “This is a business decision. That’s what capitalism is.”

True. But capitalism shouldn’t be unfair.

In the case of individual health insurance, policyholders enjoy no group rates or safety in numbers. They are at the mercy of their insurers, which is why rates have soared in recent years.

Nearly 151,000 Anthem policyholders in California will see their rates go up as much as 26% on May 1. Under pressure from state officials, Blue Shield of California recently dropped plans for another rate hike that would have meant cumulative increases of as much as 87% for some policyholders.

The average rate increase for renewals of individual polices last year was 20%, according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Switching to a cheaper plan still entailed an average rate hike of 13%, the survey found.

“The individual insurance market is not a fair playing field,” said Ken Stuart, chairman of the California Health Care Coalition, a nonprofit organization that represents large purchasers of health insurance such as school districts, labor unions and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

“The inequities of the individual insurance market have been terrible for a long time,” he said. “People are at the mercy of the marketplace.”

I’ve long believed that a Medicare-for-all approach is the most equitable way of providing health coverage for people. At the very least, some sort of public option should be available for the millions of people who lack employer-provided insurance.

They’ll presumably have improved access to healthcare several years from now when so-called insurance exchanges are created under the reform law and insurers are prevented from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions.

But that’s only if there’s a mandate for everyone to enter the system, and a number of lawsuits are pending that challenge Congress’ authority to impose such a requirement. Without a mandate, it’s difficult to see how these exchanges would operate if people could just wait until they get sick before seeking coverage.

In the meantime, insurers get to keep calling all the shots, and people like the Selters are presented with the miserable choice of having to pick between higher premiums and higher deductibles if they want to remain insured.

That’s capitalism. I get it.

But you’d think we’d be able to agree that there are some things — access to safe food, clean water, affordable healthcare — that shouldn’t be first and foremost about profits.

Or do I have that wrong?

0

OBAMA SIGNS REPEAL OF HEALTHCARE LAW’S ‘1099’ TAX-REPORTING RULE

The Washington Post –

Apr. 14: President Obama on Thursday signed into law a measure that repeals the unpopular 1099 tax-reporting provision of the national health-care law.

The move marked the first successful effort by Congress to repeal a portion of Obama’s signature health-care legislation. The Senate earlier this month voted 87-to-12 to repeal the 1099 provision. The House passed the measure in March on a bipartisan 314-to-112 vote.

The White House released a statement announcing the Obama had signed the measure, which it said “repeals the expansion in the Affordable Care Act of requirements for businesses to report information to the Internal Revenue Service on payments for goods of $600 or more annually to other businesses and increases the amount of overpayment subject to repayment of premium assistance tax credits for health insurance coverage purchases through the Exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”

Obama’s signing of the legislation into law marks the end of a nearly eight-month-long effort by lawmakers to do away with the 1099 tax-reporting provision. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) had led the effort in the Senate, but each time repeal seemed close, the parties reached an impasse over how to pay for the repeal, which would result in the loss of an estimated $22 billion over the next decade.

The law signed by Obama on Thursday would pay for repeal by forcing greater repayment of health insurance subsidies for families whose income unexpectedly exceeds certain thresholds.

Johanns lauded the signing in a statement Thursday evening. “Job creators can finally celebrate: the 1099 tax paperwork mandate is officially off the books,” Johanns said.

“Because of the resilience of small business owners everywhere in keeping this issue at the forefront, because of the good judgment of my colleagues in both houses in recognizing the foolishness of this mandate, and now because of the President’s signature, our job creators can go about their business without fear of being hammered by mountains of additional, unnecessary tax paperwork.”

0

High-Deductible Plans Not More Risky for Medically Vulnerable

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Medically vulnerable individuals enrolled in high-deductible health plans are not at a greater risk for cutting back on necessary health services than non-vulnerable enrollees in high-deductible plans, according to a new study by RAND Corporation, Modern Healthcare reports (Vesely, Modern Healthcare, 4/18).

The California HealthCare Foundation provided support for the study. CHCF publishes California Healthline (RAND release, 4/18).

For the study, researchers analyzed data on more than 360,000 U.S. families enrolled in high-deductible health plans through 59 large employers between 2003 and 2007.

In particular, researchers examined how high-deductible plans affected families living in low-income areas and families that had a member with a serious chronic condition.

Key Findings

Some health advocates have expressed concern that high-deductible plans could spur low-income families and people with chronic illnesses to forgo necessary medical care.

However, Amelia Haviland — lead author of the study and a statistician at RAND — said researchers “did not find greater cutbacks for medically vulnerable families.”

The study found that some high-deductible plan enrollees with chronic illnesses were more likely to obtain certain preventive services than low-income and non-vulnerable enrollees (Tocknell, HealthLeaders Media, 4/19).

Researchers noted that policyholders of all income levels tended to use recommended preventive services less frequently after switching to a high-deductible plan (Hobson, “Health Blog,” Wall Street Journal, 4/18).

In addition, the study found that the size of the deductible affected spending on health services among non-vulnerable families. According to Haviland, medically vulnerable families reduced spending on prescription drugs only when deductibles were at least $1,000 per person.

Implications

Haviland said the study “suggests that non-vulnerable families, low-income families and high-risk families are equally affected under high-deductible plans.”

Researchers noted that the findings could become more pertinent over the next few years because the state health insurance exchanges mandated under the federal health reform law could start offering high-deductible health plans in 2014 (HealthLeaders Media, 4/19).

0