30% of US Employers Intend to Drop Healthcare in 2014

[Dreadnaught]

Mission accomplished?

HEALTH INDUSTRY | JUNE 8, 2011

Study Sees Cuts to Health Plans

By JANET ADAMY

A report by McKinsey & Co. has found that 30% of employers are likely to stop offering workers health insurance after the bulk of the Obama administration's health overhaul takes effect in 2014.

The findings come as a growing number of employers are seeking waivers from an early provision in the overhaul that requires them to enrich their benefits this year. At the end of April, the administration had granted 1,372 employers, unions and insurance companies one-year exemptions from the law's requirement that they not cap annual benefit payouts below $750,000 per person a year.

But the law doesn't allow for such waivers starting in 2014, leaving all those entities—and other employers whose plans don't meet a slate of new requirements—to change their offerings or drop coverage.

Previous research has suggested the number of employers who opt to drop coverage altogether in 2014 would be minimal.

But the McKinsey study predicts a more dramatic shift from employer-sponsored health plans once the new marketplace takes effect. Starting in 2014, all but the smallest employers will be required to provide insurance or pay a fine, while most Americans will have to carry coverage or pay a different fine. Lower earners will get subsidies to help them pay for plans.

In surveying 1,300 employers earlier this year, McKinsey found that 30% said they would "definitely or probably" stop offering employer coverage in the years after 2014. That figure increased to more than 50% among employers with a high awareness of the overhaul law.

Behind the expected shift is the fact that the law will give Americans new insurance options outside the workplace, and carriers will no longer be allowed to deny people coverage because they have been sick. McKinsey found that reduced the moral obligation employers may feel to provide coverage.

The Obama administration says it is working to encourage employers to retain coverage. An administration official, Nick Papas, described the McKinsey report as an outlier amid other research suggesting that employers overwhelmingly would keep coverage.

"History has shown that reform motivates more businesses to offer insurance," he said. "When Massachusetts enacted health reform, the number of individuals with employer-sponsored insurance increased."

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in a March 2010 report, found that by 2019, about six million to seven million people who otherwise would have had access to coverage through their job won't have it owing to the new law. That estimate represents about 4% of the roughly 160 million people projected to have employment-based coverage in 2019.

However, the CBO estimated that the overall number of Americans with coverage will rise by 32 million because of new subsidies and other steps.

The law contains a disincentive for employers to drop coverage. It requires all employers with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits to every full-time worker or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker, though it doesn't apply to the first 30 workers. Health-policy experts have questioned whether that is high enough to discourage companies from health coverage.

McKinsey found at least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage even if they completely compensated employees through other benefits or higher salaries. The study suggests the fallout would be minimal, with more than 85% of employees remaining in their jobs even if their employer stopped coverage.

Nearly half the employers said they would consider alternatives to their current plan after 2014. Besides dropping coverage, those included weighing a switch to a defined-contribution model of insurance, in effect offering coverage only to certain employees.

Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...092308600.html

Was dismantling the employer-based health system the point of all of this? Can't tell if this is the point or a classic case of unintended consequences.

[Hazir]

Don't know if it was, but it sure sounds like a smart move to dismantle employer based health care insurance. That's just a brake on the job market.

[Draco]

By mission accomplished you mean Obama and co wanting to make even more people/citizens dependent on the government (and hence continue to vote in his crap), then yes.

[EyeKhan]

Mission accomplished?



Was dismantling the employer-based health system the point of all of this? Can't tell if this is the point or a classic case of unintended consequences.

The employer based system is an awful failure, like the for-profit health insurance system that's bleeding us dry. It should be dismantled, all of it, and replaced with single payer.

[Aimless]

The Obama administration says it is working to encourage employers to retain coverage.

But why...?

[Loki]

The employer based system is an awful failure, like the for-profit health insurance system that's bleeding us dry. It should be dismantled, all of it, and replaced with single payer.

Pray tell who'll pay the trillions necessary to keep such a system afloat.

[EyeKhan]

Pray tell who'll pay the trillions necessary to keep such a system afloat.

Who pays to keep the mess afloat we have now?

[Loki]

For the most part, employers.

[GGT]

The law contains a disincentive for employers to drop coverage. It requires all employers with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits to every full-time worker or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker, though it doesn't apply to the first 30 workers. Health-policy experts have questioned whether that is high enough to discourage companies from health coverage.

$2,000 per worker is cheaper than contributing to their health insurance. And the "disincentive" for individuals is a fine cheaper than carrying insurance. Although I'm not sure if it's cumulative. If you don't have insurance for ten years but show up in the ER, is the fine a one-time deal or times ten?

I agree it should be decoupled from employment, but insurance companies act as expensive middle-men that haven't done anything to reduce spiraling costs of care.

[EyeKhan]

For the most part, employers.

Then use that same revenue source but don't limit it to the company's employees only. Use it to provide care for everyone.

[Enoch the Red]

Then use that same revenue source but don't limit it to the company's employees only. Use it to provide care for everyone.

I'm sure that will work.

[GGT]

Who pays to keep the mess afloat we have now?

For the most part, employers.

Large employers who pay part of employee insurance haven't really paid a fair share, though. Neither have the employees. They have out-weighted group bargaining for provider and reimbursement rates that leads to falsely low premiums and cost-shifting. Ironically, the same kind of complaint lodged against unions and their members, and government workers with platinum plans.

But we also have tons of small businesses, self-employed, part-time and contract workers. Didn't we have data from BLS showing the majority of workers aren't employed by large companies at all? Part of the reason we have ~ 50 Million uninsured is because (a) they don't get it from employers, and (b) it's too expensive to buy independently.

[EyeKhan]

--- but insurance companies act as expensive middle-men that haven't done anything to reduce spiraling costs of care.

Insurance companies add cost with their profit motive, with their duplication of administrative structures, and through their inconsistency in paperwork standards and requirements which forces doctors' office management to understand and be able to do a large variety of billing methods with differing back up data requirements, differing coverage levels, etc. The waste in having this large number of duplicate for-profit beauracracies employing an inconsistent patchwork of processes has to be gigantic. And all this complexity surely has to make fraud easier to get away with - spotting anomilies and irregularities has to be difficult when there is no standard. But on top of all this, your point is key - nobody is addressing why the costs keep rising. Just allocating less money to pay for medical care doesn't fix anything at all. It just takes a nasty problem and makes it worse in additional ways.

[EyeKhan]

I'm sure that will work.

I'm glad you agree.

[GGT]

Insurance companies add cost with their profit motive, with their duplication of administrative structures, and through their inconsistency in paperwork standards and requirements which forces doctors' office management to understand and be able to do a large variety of billing methods with differing back up data requirements, differing coverage levels, etc. The waste in having this large number of duplicate for-profit beauracracies employing an inconsistent patchwork of processes has to be gigantic. And all this complexity surely has to make fraud easier to get away with - spotting anomilies and irregularities has to be difficult when there is no standard.

Absolutely.

Strong reason we've lost solo and small-partner primary care and family medicine physicians, that turned into massive managed care groups. Insurance companies partner with physicians, hospitals and outpatient services (phlebotomy, radiology, physical therapy, outpatient surgeries) and lure them under a large umbrella---providing and coordinating their office staff, medical billing, physical upgrades, transition to digital records, guaranteed time off and vacations, and paying their exorbitant professional liability insurance.

In a small region like mine, with one large level one teaching hospital and a smaller community hospital, it's become a monopoly in many ways. Not much competition at all. Wellspan is also buying up rehab centers, extended care facilities and nursing homes. The only group of docs with enough money and clout to "oppose" that model are orthopedic surgeons who opened a private Sports Medicine outpatient facility. Also provide spinal injury and disease treatment. They have their own imaging, lab and surgery suites, all inclusive.

But on top of all this, your point is key - nobody is addressing why the costs keep rising. Just allocating less money to pay for medical care doesn't fix anything at all. It just takes a nasty problem and makes it worse in additional ways.

Agreed. One solution might be to fund government R & D even more, so that everyone can benefit from the newest and most expensive innovations. Not just major medical schools or big pharma with their expensive cutting edge discoveries (and wanting to take advantage of patents and profits for their efforts and costs). Admittedly, I have no idea how to make that work in practice. Especially at a time when anything connected with "the government" is considered evil and inefficient.

[Aimless]

Can someone explain why Obama wants employers to keep doing what they've been doing?

[Aimless]

Agreed. One solution might be to fund government R & D even more, so that everyone can benefit from the newest and most expensive innovations. Not just major medical schools or big pharma with their expensive cutting edge discoveries (and wanting to take advantage of patents and profits for their efforts and costs). Admittedly, I have no idea how to make that work in practice. Especially at a time when anything connected with "the government" is considered evil and inefficient.

You guys need a primary healthcare system. And then you need to focus on public health. You need a healthy, unstressed, well-educated populace. Nanobots come later

[GGT]

That's SSSSocialism.




Time for a Palin-fist yet? Yes, I think so!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_873062.html

[GGT]

One solution might be to fund government R & D even more, so that everyone can benefit from the newest and most expensive innovations. Not just major medical schools or big pharma with their expensive cutting edge discoveries (and wanting to take advantage of patents and profits for their efforts and costs). Admittedly, I have no idea how to make that work in practice. Especially at a time when anything connected with "the government" is considered evil and inefficient.

Government funding + private innovation has worked well in the scenario of this deadly E. coli outbreak. Notice the importance of government funding and/or global coordination:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

"It's a semiconductor device that senses chemistry, so it can directly read off the DNA," said Jonathan Rotheberg of Life Technologies Corp. of Carlsbad, Calif., which sells the ion torrent device.

The way that the genetic data of the 2011 E. coli strain were disseminated globally suggests a more effective approach for tackling public health problems. Both groups put their sequencing data on the Internet, so scientists the world over could immediately begin their own analysis of the bug's makeup. BGI scientists also are using Twitter to communicate their latest findings.

[Dreadnaught]

I can't help but think that this is making the most extreme/conspiratorial of right-wing prophesies seem true. I've always argued that this law would be wildly more expensive than intended, and would lead to potentially endless subsidies. But it seems almost plausible to believe that the goal is to create an incentive to put more people on the government-subsidized medical dole.

I don't support an employer-centered system, but that system exists primarily as a result of government distortions of the health insurance market. To further distort the market like this would make the $1 trillion initial price tag of Obamacare seem like a cute underestimation.

[GGT]

I can't help but think that this is making the most extreme/conspiratorial of right-wing prophesies seem true. I've always argued that this law would be wildly more expensive than intended, and would lead to potentially endless subsidies. But it seems almost plausible to believe that the goal is to create an incentive to put more people on the government-subsidized medical dole.

Conspiratorial? Is the Insurance Industry "right or left" wing?

I don't support an employer-centered system, but that system exists primarily as a result of government distortions of the health insurance market. To further distort the market like this would make the $1 trillion initial price tag of Obamacare seem like a cute underestimation.

Are you sure about the origins of distortions coming from the gov't....or did they come from your most-loathed unions....or did the insurance industry monopoly play a part?

[Aimless]

McKinsey found at least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage even if they completely compensated employees through other benefits or higher salaries.

hmmm

[Dreadnaught]

It makes sense —*offering health insurance requires paying employee premiums to some extent as well as tons of administrative costs.

In a better world, they could just pay people more in cash and those people could purchase the health insurance they want in a more competitive market. We may not get the more competitive insurance market, but we may get the cash-instead-of-insurance thing. Except Obamacare will subsidize insurance purchases for people with incomes up to $88,000 or so.

Are you sure about the origins of distortions coming from the gov't....or did they come from your most-loathed unions....or did the insurance industry monopoly play a part?

We all know why employer-funded health insurance came about. It's just been exacerbated by legislative inertia, insurance companies looking for a handout [that is blowing up in their faces] and the heaping-on of bad ideas.

[Aimless]

It makes sense —*offering health insurance requires paying employee premiums to some extent as well as tons of administrative costs.

I agree, which is why part of this larger "mess" may perhaps be paid for

[GGT]

We all know why employer-funded health insurance came about. It's just been exacerbated by legislative inertia, insurance companies looking for a handout [that is blowing up in their faces] and the heaping-on of bad ideas.

Humor me. Explain how employer health insurance subsidies became an employment perk in the beginning. Then explain which became important first, and why---higher wages to buy our healthcare outright, or employer perks to buy health insurance. In your own words and all.....

[Dreadnaught]

I agree, which is why part of this larger "mess" may perhaps be paid for

Wait, I'm not sure I follow your point here.

Humor me. Explain how employer health insurance subsidies became an employment perk in the beginning. Then explain which became important first, and why---higher wages to buy our healthcare outright, or employer perks to buy health insurance. In your own words and all.....

I'm not going to write-out the history for you of how employers, seeking to get around WWII wage controls, included health insurance as a perk.

[GGT]

I'm not going to write-out the history for you of how employers, seeking to get around WWII wage controls, included health insurance as a perk.

Right. Would it be too much to ask for you to state when insurance became a common model for paying for our health care?

[Dreadnaught]

Yes, because we both know the answer, you're baiting me and I'm tired of it. If you have a point about why forcing large numbers of people onto the government dole for their healthcare is a good idea, please let me know.

[GGT]

Yes, because we both know the answer, you're baiting me and I'm tired of it. If you have a point about why forcing large numbers of people onto the government dole for their healthcare is a good idea, please let me know.

Not baiting you at all. Just asking you to explain the origins of your beliefs, and how it translates into forcing large numbers of people onto the government dole for their healthcare.

[Dreadnaught]

I don't believe in forcing large numbers of people onto the government dole. This is why I think Obamacare is flawed...perhaps more flawed than originally imagined.