Many U.S. employers to drop health benefits: McKinsey | Reuters

 CHICAGO | Tue Jun 7, 2011

(Reuters) – At least 30 percent of employers are likely to stop offering health insurance once provisions of the U.S. health care reform law kick in in 2014, according to a study by consultant McKinsey.

McKinsey, which based its projection on a survey of more than 1,300 employers of various sizes and industries and other proprietary research, found that 30 percent of employers will “definitely” or “probably” stop offering coverage in the years after 2014, when new medical insurance exchanges are supposed to be up and running.

“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,” according to the study, published in McKinsey Quarterly.

Many U.S. employers to drop health benefits: McKinsey | Reuters

ACA and The Employer Mandate – Can It Work?

Much fuss has been made of health reform’s “individual mandate”.  It is the favorite target of tea baggers.  Several states have filed suit against the federal government to block its implementation.

There are debates about whether the individual mandate is legal, and more important, whether it will be effective.

These questions may take on even more significance if employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) does not survive.   There are some, including this author, who question whether it will survive?

Shamrock on First Day of Spring

Confusing Incentives

What will be the incentives under ACA (the Affordable Care Act) for employers to continue to provide health insurance?  During the debate leading up to its passage a year ago, employers clung to the promise that if more people paid for their coverage it would lower the costs to employers. Continue reading

Too Much Health Care Insurance?

Can one have too much health care coverage?

Much of the debate for expanded health care coverage and for a single payer financing and delivery system arises out of concern for people without access to the traditional portals into the health care system: employment, old age, or poverty.

Abundance

But some people can have a whole lot of a good thing and still their medical bills fall through the cracks.

Take Dinah for example.

Consider the ways she had access to health care.

She was employed and had access to employer sponsored health insurance.

She was married and had access to health insurance as a dependent on her husband’s plan.

Her husband died and she became eligible for coverage as a survivor through her husband’s plan.

Her husband also had a retirement from a previous employer and she had access to coverage as a survivor on that plan.

She retired and had access to retiree health insurance from her employer.

She remarried and access to her second husband’s health insurance as a dependent.

She also had Medicare.

And still she could not get her bills paid.

There were mix ups in signing her up for some of those programs and the ones she was enrolled in could not decide which paid first, which was her primary insurance.  She came to us in tears, wanting to discard the insurance she had been paying for because it was “no good,” convinced her only option was to go on Medicaid.

Confusion reigns.

And even when people and systems have it right, confusion reigns.  Each year we get calls from people during Medicare Part D open enrollment?  They are confused and some of the vendors seem to offer extremely misleading and inaccurate information.  Why does it need to be so complicated.

Take Frank for example.

Frank was taking care of his older sister’s affairs.  She was in a nursing home and had access to Medicaid, Medicare Parts A and B and D and her retiree insurance with our plan.  Yet she could not get her prescriptions paid for.  Why?  It seems that the private pharmacy used by the nursing home did not know how to submit claims to any other payer than Medicaid.  That was straightened out.

But Frank made an astute observation.  He said each time he called one of these “pieces of the pie” as he called them, he would get a little bit more information.  He complained that each of the pieces barely understood their own role and no one understood how all of these pieces fit together.  “If they can’t see the whole picture, how do they expect an ordinary person like me to figure this out?”

Or the members who battle workers’ compensation in part to pay the medical bills for their work related injury and also to have income to pay the insurance premiums that pays for the medical bills for their non-work related medical bills.

Single payer is needed not just to provide for the have-nots, but also to bring order into a chaotic system for the haves.

Photo credit:    Stijn

Two Gatherings! Two Directions!

This past week two gatherings addressed health care reform.

Liberty bell in Philadelphia

Liberty Bell in Philadelphia

The International Federation of Employee Benefit Plan (IFEBP) hosted its Annual Conference in Honolulu, HI.  Approximately 5,000 representatives from employer sponsored benefit plans and from benefit trust funds, as well as the professionals and vendors that serve them gathered to hear speakers address the changing world of health and pension benefits.

A major topic of discussion was the short and longer term implications of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  What do employee benefit plans need to do this month or this year?  What will the ACA mean for the longer term viability of employer sponsored health care?

The other gathering was much smaller. About 135 activists, most of them unpaid, met for the Healthcare-NOW! Strategy Conference in Philadelphia to discuss how to organize and build for another, very different, future for health care – single payer.

Anxiety about the future

The wonderful Hawaiian weather could not mask the anxiety felt by many plan sponsors over the future of employer sponsored health care.  Speakers tried to compare the ACA with ERISA, the landmark 70’s law that reshaped the landscape for pension plans adding stability and some legal protections to employer pension plans.  Yet thirty five years ago pension plan sponsors were very nervous about ERISA.

Continue reading

Will PPACA Increase Employer Health Insurance?

Can you really trust computers?

The New England Journal of Medicine recently reported on a Rand study that concludes that the Accountable Care Act will result in a large net increase in employer-sponsored insurance offers.  They predict that the number of workers getting insurance from their employers will rise from the current 60% to 86%.KFF dw_09_08_2010

The Rand study was based on computer modeling.  Is there reason to think that the model is based in reality?

Yes and No

The study itself points to the reality of the experience in Massachusetts where employer based coverage increased after passage of a similar health reform initiative.

In addition, there is this little quirk in the recently released Kaiser Family Foundation 2010 Employer Benefit Survey.

Katherine Hobson writes about it on her blog at the Wall Street Journal. Continue reading