Archive for the ‘Tax Policy’ Category

Alligators and Taxes

When you are up to your neck in alligators, its hard to remember that someone needs to drain the swamp.

The American Allligator

The American Alligator

Last week, I wrote about the tax on “Cadillac plans”.  This past week, BHO reached an agreement with labor unions, the primary voice of the opposition to taxing so-called “Cadillac plans”.  The tax is still there.  My suggestion didn’t seem to make it into the discussion.  I was busy dealing with alligators.  That’s my day job.

One of our carriers had a computer glitch (a nice euphemism) that disrupted coverage for many people.  Here is a typical example of the kind of fires we had to put out – a woman went to the doctor’s office and the doctor could feel a lump in her breast but would not order a mammogram because the office had contacted the insurance carrier and had learned (incorrectly) that she had no coverage.

These incidents prompted me to wonder.  If we had a single payer health care system, couldn’t we have the same problems?

After all, we will certainly still have computers.

But we won’t have people moving from plan to plan because they changed jobs.  We won’t have people losing coverage because they lost their job, or because they got sick, lost their paycheck and therefore could not afford their health insurance premium.

Doctors and hospitals will know who is paying their bills and therefore might show a bit more patience with administrative errors.  After all, if a computer error like that should occur in a single payer system, it likely would affect a high percentage of their patients.

There would hopefully be a sense of shared crisis, not one that abandons people in a time of acute need.

Oh, and the tax compromise reached recently.  It is still a bad idea.  Now it is just an acutely complicated bad idea.

And it will do absolutely nothing to make our health care system less fragmented, less chaotic, and more humane.

It just lets in more alligators and stops up the drain even more.

Did you like this? Share it:

Tax Health Plans – Not Health Benefits!

I want to help the President and I need your thoughts.

Is President Obama about to follow the ignominious example of GB I, George Bush, The Elder?images_3

Remember, “Read my lips.  No new taxes!”?

Remember, “John McCain will tax your benefits!”

Well BHO seems about to cave on his campaign pledge.

At least GB I could argue that the campaign promise was bad policy and the flip-flop was forced by economic realities.

Oh that BHO could make the same argument!

I have often railed against the taxation of benefits in this space.  I think it is bad politics, bad economics, and bad health policy. I am certainly not the only one.  Frankly, I think President Obama’s capitulation on this issue demonstrates profound political weakness and an astounding ignorance of health insurance.

A new idea.

But in the spirit of compromise, I want to offer a new idea.  It may not be the best suggestion for financing health care reform, but it builds on at least one stated goal of the tax my benefits people – containing costs.

But instead of penalizing people whose only control over costs is to use fewer services, my idea targets the folks who actually have some impact on the health care market – the insurance companies.

Tax the insurance companies

Wait, you say, we are already taxing insurance companies, and those just get passed along to consumers.  But alas, I say, let’s build on the “Cadillac” idea of an excise tax.  Tax the increase in the total cost of a Plan’s  book of business.  By imposing an excise tax on increases over a base level of costs, it could provide an incentive for insurance companies to manage their provider contracts and book of business costs.

This table illustrates how that would work.

How an excise tax on excess costs by insurance companies might work

The tax would be imposed on gross premiums and not on profits.  It would be payable just as any other cost of doing business, but would not be deductible as a business expense.  Space doesn’t permit me to dwell on the negatives of taxing benefits at the individual level.  I encourage you to click on the category “tax policy” to the right to see my earlier thoughts on this subject.

Taxing insurance companies achieves several objectives that taxing individuals does not.

As an employee benefits professional who has spent a career trying to “manage health care costs,”  I often find criticisms of insurance companies unjustified.  After all, they are only trying to do what we hire them to do.

An excise tax on total premiums could do what individual employers have failed to get their carriers to do – negotiate better prices with providers and manage utilization.  They are the only ones in the private market space who can do that.  Employers, despite many innovative efforts, have not succeeded.  And individuals are absolutely powerless.

Equally important, imposing the tax on a carrier’s (or a TPA’s) book of business, avoids the inequities inherent in smaller group pricing.  The myth of taxing “Cadillac” plans is that these are “rich” plans.  An employer’s cost is impacted first and foremost by the age and illness burden of its population, then by cost sharing and benefit provisions.

An excise tax on insurers and third party administrators (a phenomenon that BHO and Congress seem oblivious to)  is simpler, more equitable and is focused on entities that can actually impact the total cost of health care.

It would be payable even when the company otherwise made no profits.

Because it is focused on fewer entities, it would be less of an administrative burden on the system and easier to enforce.

The alternative – taxing individual plans – is an unforgivable political and policy blunder.

Your thoughts?

Did you like this? Share it:

AFL-CIO aims at centrist Dems over ‘Cadillac tax’

By Michael O’Brien – 12/07/09

The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room

The AFL-CIO’s new TV ad is set to take aim at centrist Democrats over the Senate healthcare bill’s taxes on insurance plans.
The ad, which pushes the Senate to remove the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-value insurance policies, will begin running Monday in Delaware, Indiana, and Virginia.

Those states are home to centrist Democratic Senators Tom Carper (Del.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Jim Webb (Va.), and Mark Warner (Va.), whose votes on the taxes in this bill are subject to pressure from the labor group and other organizations with a stake in the healthcare fight.

AFL-CIO aims at centrist Dems over ‘Cadillac tax’ – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room

Did you like this? Share it:

Taxing Health Care – Tiresome but Persistent

The old saw, “The devil is in the details” does not seem to apply in the discussion on taxing health care benefits.  While there appears to be a certain momentum behind this idea, the details of the consequences (other than raising revenue) are barely discussed.

mad_hatterJonathan Cohn, a writer I generally admire, gives high praise to a new report by the Center for Budget Priorities, arguing that this report should prompt people like me to rethink our opposition to the idea.

So perhaps their latest message will get through to liberals and liberally inclined interest groups that oppose tinkering with the tax exclusion for health benefits. The title of their new report says it all: “Limiting the Tax Exclusion for Employer-Sponsored Insurance Can Help Pay for Health Reform: Universal Coverage May Be Out of Reach Otherwise.”

I recently detailed  the devils that I was concerned about.  The CBP attempts to address some of them.  So let’s take a closer look at their arguments, using the reports own headings.

The Exclusion is the nation’s costliest tax subsidy.

Duh?  Health care is one of the fastest growing expense items in the federal budget.  It is also one of the fastest growing cost items for private business.  Which costs less, the loss of tax revenue or paying the full freight for the health care now provided by the private sector? Continue reading ‘Taxing Health Care – Tiresome but Persistent’

Did you like this? Share it:

Employer Health Plans – Is there a Future?

Is there a future for employer based health insurance?

This is not a rhetorical question.

This is not an anxious question from an employee benefits professional.

This is not wishful thinking by a single payer advocate.

In the Call to Action by the Senate Finance Committee,  Chairman Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) calls for “Strengthening the Employer-based system.  We must ensure the continued viability of the employer-based system – the principal source of health coverage for most Americans.”

Fine words.  But the weak point in the statement is the phrase “continued viability”.  It is fair to ask whether the current system is viable and whether it can continue.

Both the percentage and the number of people covered by employer provided health insurance and the percentage of firms offering health insurance has declined over the last two decades. Continue reading ‘Employer Health Plans – Is there a Future?’

Did you like this? Share it:

Archives

Bloggers - Meet Millions of Bloggers