Fwd: qotd: Large employers moving en masse to high deductibles

_______________________________________________
Quote-of-the-day mailing list
Quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: qotd: Large employers moving en masse to high deductibles
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:25:20 -0700
From: Don McCanne <don@mccanne.org>
To: Quote-of-the-Day <quote-of-the-day@mccanne.org>



PwC Health Research Institute
June 2013
Medical Cost Trend: Behind the Numbers 2014

Each year, HRI issues its projection for the following year's medical
cost trend based on activity in the market that serves employer-based
insurance.

Consumer-driven health plans - insurance coverage with a high-deductible
- are set to go mainstream in 2014. According to the 2013 PwC Touchstone
Survey of major US companies, 44% of employers are considering offering
high-deductible health plans as the only benefit option to their
employees in 2014. Already, 17% of employers offer high-deductible plans
as their only option in 2013, a 31% increase over 2012.

High-deductible health plans, which place greater responsibility on
consumers, are designed to promote cost-conscious decisions. A recent
study reported families that switched from a traditional health plan to
a high-deductible plan spent an average of 21% less on healthcare in the
first year.

The ACA, with its new insurance marketplaces, accelerates the move to
consumer-driven plans. Many of the newly insured say they are willing to
accept plan features such as higher deductibles in return for lower
monthly premiums - as found in the new bronze and silver plans.

2013 - Average deductibles

$1,230 - In-network
$2,110 - Out-of-network

http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/health-industries/behind-the-numbers/assets/medical-cost-trend-behind-the-numbers-2014.pdf


Comment: The forces supporting consumer-driven health care (CDHC) have
incessantly asserted emphatically that the answer to our health care
spending problem is to place the consumer (i.e., patient) in charge of
health care spending. Although some of us have been trying to explain
the horrible consequences of this approach, the mainstream media
disseminated the message of the CDHC advocates so effectively that it
has now become a meme. The CDHC camp has won the policy battle.

How can we say this? CDHC has now become virtually synonymous with
high-deductible health plans (HDHP). Whether or not the deductible
passes through a health savings account or is paid directly really
doesn't make much difference since the designated cash account is simply
a matter of tax policy rather than health policy. Let's look at a very
brief history of HDHPs to see if we can understand why we lost.

Large employer-sponsored group plans have been the mainstay of health
coverage in the United States for decades. They have provided
comprehensive coverage through high actuarial value plans which required
only modest cost sharing by the patient. As health care costs increased,
large employers depended more on controlling spending by creating
networks of providers with contracted rates. In contrast, individuals,
and to a certain extent smaller employers, were unable to afford the
premiums for high actuarial value plans and so the insurers heavily
marketed high-deductible plans that had much more competitive premiums;
so that's what people bought.

When the Affordable Care Act was written, it was recognized that high
actuarial value plans would be unaffordable unless the government
subsidies were much larger than members of Congress were willing to
budget. Thus the decision was made to make the benchmark plan for the
insurance exchanges a low actuarial value plan (silver), made possible
only by using high deductibles.

Large employers have been looking for relief from the very high costs of
their employee health benefit programs. It looks like they've found it,
now that HDHPs are becoming the new standard set by our government for
the plans in the exchanges. This report from PwC shows that 12 percent
of employers used HDHPs as their only option in 2012, and that may
increase to 44 percent next year! That is a phenomenal shift in such a
short period, and is the basis for saying that the CDHC (HDHP) camp has
won the policy battle.

Not only are patients assessed a significant financial penalty for
seeking health care (an average $1,230 deductible), that penalty is
almost doubled if the patient obtains care out of network ($2,110
deductible) - a greater likelihood as narrower networks become more
prevalent.

HDHPs have become popular for one reason only, and that is not because
they make patients better shoppers. It is only because the premium to
purchase the health plans is more affordable (or for self-insured
employers the amount paid out in benefits is less).

There are two important trade-offs for the lower premiums. One is that
people will decline to obtain appropriate health care since they will
have to pay full fees until the deductible is met. A properly designed
financing system should make it easier for people to obtain the care
they need, not more difficult. The other is that far too many people
have little or no discretionary income, and high deductibles create a
financial hardship for them. The health care financing system should
reduce or eliminate financial hardship, not create it.

And the out-of-network penalties? A financing system should increase
health care choices for patients, not reduce them.

This boat is not going to turn around. Within two or three years, HDHPs
will be the standard for employer-sponsored coverage. More people will
suffer. The media knew that this change had to come, but only because
they didn't listen to us. They simply dismissed single payer because of
another meme - "it isn't feasible."

I'm not a violent person, but the next time I hear, "skin in the ...,"
watch out!