What Do We Really Know About Consumer-Driven Health Plans?

Employers began offering consumer-driven health plans in 2001, when a handful started offering HRAs.  They then started offering HSA-eligible plans after the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 included a provision to allow individuals with certain high-deductible health plans to contribute to an HSA.
Since the introduction of CDHPs in 2001, the percentage of employers offering them has grown.  Surveys show that the percentage of employers offering an HRA- or HSA-eligible plan increased from below 5 percent in 2005 to between 12−15 percent by 2009.  Growth in offer rates can be seen across all firm sizes.  However, recently, the percentage of small firms that offered a CDHP declined while larger firms continued to add a CDHP as an option.

Overall, 19.1 million, or 11 percent of people with either employment-based coverage or individually purchased insurance, were enrolled in a CDHP in 2009.  More recent data suggest that by 2010, 10 million people were in an HSA-eligible plan.  There are no comparable data yet for HRA enrollment.

Generally, premiums for CDHPs were lower than premiums for non-CDHPs.  Growth in premiums varies both by type of plan and over time.  In 2009, HSA-eligible premiums increased slightly faster than non-CDHP premiums, increasing   3.5 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively.  Premiums in HRA-based plans decreased 4.3 percent.

However, CDHP premiums may be lower than non-CDHP premium simply because the CDHP population is healthier, and there is some evidence of this.  One study found that while actual savings ranged from a high of 15.5 percent to a low of −4.7 percent, and average savings were 4.8 percent, most of the savings were due to fact that younger, healthier workers choose CDHPs; the study concluded that once typical risk- and benefit-adjustment factors were taken into account, CDHPs saved only 1.5 percent on premium costs.

A number of studies have been conducted in the past few years that have examined the impact of CDHPs on the use of health care services.  The studies agree that use of preventive services did not change (upward or downward) as a result of the CDHP.

Concerning how CDHPs affect prescription drug use, studies found that overall use of brand-name prescription drugs fell and there was some offset from increased use of generic drugs, although some enrollees stopped their use of prescription drugs.  CDHP enrollees increased their use of the mail-order pharmacy option. And overall use of prescription drugs among CDHP enrollees with certain chronic conditions fell, or did not increase when enrollees met their deductible.

One study found that the financial incentives of the plan are not sufficient in driving behavior and that educational outreach also matters.

There is evidence that emergency room use declined when plan enrollees were subject to higher deductibles, though  the research should not be generalized to a CDHP setting.

There is also evidence that CDHP enrollees received higher quality care than members of other types of plans in areas related to low-back pain, eye exams, and nephropathy screening for diabetes.

No difference was found for medication management for persons with depression and asthma, annual monitoring for persons taking persistent medications, cholesterol management for persons with cardiovascular disease, or HbA1c testing and low-density lipoprotein screening for persons with diabetes.

Most of the research to date has focused on individuals in HRA-based plans.  Little systematic research has been conducted on HSA-eligible enrollees. While HRAs and HSA-eligible plans look a lot alike, the differences are significant enough to warrant separate analyses of the impact of the plans.

Also, most of the research to date has focused on plan design and has ignored the impact of the consumer-driven account on use of health care services and overall spending.

Individual contributions to HSAs and employer contributions to both HSAs and HRAs may affect the use of health care services.  Furthermore, account balances may have an effect as well: Individuals may use health care services differently, depending on how much money is being contributed to the account, especially relative to the eductible; amounts rolled over; and portability of the account.

Despite the growing body of evidence on the effect of CDHPs on cost and quality, there are many unanswered questions.

Out-gaming the System Gamers in Massachusetts Health Insurance

The health insurance carriers in Massachusetts are getting shafted under the 2007 health care reform law.  And last week the Legislature moved to close the loopholes.

Currently, there’s a requirement for each Mass resident to purchase health insurance.  And there’s a penalty if you don’t.  And there aren’t any pre-existing conditions, so it doesn’t matter if you have cancer.

Problem With the System

There is, however, a problem.  The penalty for not having health insurance is like $195 a year.  Think about that.  You have to sign up for health insurance that will cost you, as a single, something like $400 a month… or you can say to hell with it and pay nothing.  Until you get sick.  THEN you can join and pay the $400 a month… whilst you take out $5,000 a month or more in paid benefits.

Think I’m exaggerating?  Nope, I’m not.  Harvard Pilgrim officials tell me that individuals who sign up with them have claims that are 600% higher than actuarial numbers suggest they should be.  600%,

What’s more, 40% of the individuals who sign up for non-group plans aren’t with the plan 120 days later, and 60% never make it a full year.

Clearly, folks jump on and off when they need to.  Get a major, expensive treatment or series of tests only every three months?  No problem.  Join up at the beginning of the month when you get your tests; drop off at the end of the month.  Insurance carrier gets screwed, but so what?

The Legislature’s Cure

So the Legislature passed a fix.  And it’s a pretty good one:

  1. In this first year there will only be two open enrollment periods, Jan 1 – Feb 15 and July 1 – Aug 15.
  2. Thereafter, there will be only one open enrollment period, July 1 – Aug 15.
  3. Individuals who have qualifying events (laid off, new in the state, etc) will continue to be able to enroll outside of the open enrollment period.
  4. Individuals can’t buy an individual policy if they’re eligible for a group policy.

All-in-all, not bad.  I suppose those who wish to continue cheating the rest of us will find a way… but at least it will be complex enough that most will better abide by the rules.

Fighting Healthcare Inflation, Massachusetts Style

Part of the new regulations signed by Gov. Patrick last Tuesday (I believe) were some provisions designed to help keep health care costs under control   While I think they missed the mark (providers — large institutional, major name providers — are the primary cause of medical inflation), they did some kind of interesting things.

  1. They set standards for the automatic disapproval of small group rates.  Under the new guidelines rates will be disapproved if:
    1. a plan’s administrative expense load increases by more than the increase in the New England medical services CPI, currently 5.1%,
    2. contribution to surplus exceeds 1.9%, although if a plan’s Risk Based Capital is less than 300%, contribution to surplus may not exceed 2.5%, or
    3. medical loss ratio (MLR) is in excess of 88% for the first year or 90% for the second year (DOI is to establish regulations for the MLR calculation).
  2. The bill requires that age factors be calculated in one year increments instead of the five year increments previously used.
  3. Moreover, the bill authorizes the DOI to set a cap on how much rates can increase for a particular group as a result of demographic changes (“rate shock bumpers”).  This would have been helpful for one of our clients who were forced to lay off all their younger employees and thus had their average age jump by about 12 years — they got an 83% rate increase!

Please note above, by the way, that national loss ratios are requiredto be at the 85% range, whereas ours start at 88% and go up to 90%  — so you can’t blame the carriers for our costs.

The New Massachusetts Health Law

Mass last week passed a “new-and-improved”  health reform bill.  Over the next couple of days we’ll look at what’s in the bill and what it means for small employers.

As usual, the law has good and bad aspects to it.  Here’s a summary list of the major provisions:

  • It both enhances and restricts the Commonwealth Connector’s ability both to compete and to use its power as a government agency in a way that creates unfair competition.
  • Establishes standards for acceptance of premium rates, which should avoid much of the mess we’ve seen this year.
  • Sets standards for enrollment in non-group business.  This has been a major source of cost for carriers and consumers alike, and the changes are welcome.
  • Establishes Small Group Health Care Purchasing Co-ops on a trial basis.
  • Requires the creation of limited-tier networks at discount rates by every carrier.
  • Does NOTHING to restrict the predatory pricing of some major medical practitioners.  It does, however, outlaw some forms of provider contracts that were attacked in the Attorney General’s report on health care cost escalation.
  • Allows a small-group credit/subsidy — but ONLY if you buy your group via the Connector… a political, move-to-government-subsidized-centralized medical care if I ever saw one.
  • Establishes a procedure to eliminate outdated or unnecessary State Mandated Benefits.
  • Creates a whole passel of other study groups to identify new ways to interfere in the free market… although a couple don’t really sound that bad.
    • Provider price study to report by next Feb on provider pricing that is adding to inflation
    • Study the prevention of falls (how in God’s name is that an area where the government should be inserting itself into the private sector?)
    • Study needs of community hospitals (good — they’re the ones who provide high quality, personalized health care — not those monstrosities downtown.)
    • Study whether to reduce the number of plan designs that carriers can offer. (why, so that the government can dictate yet another aspect of our lives only because they can?)
    • Study the  creation of a single all-payer claims adjudication system.  If they mean a unified claims form, good deal.  If they mean a pooled, easier-to-control, centralized bureaucracy to actually process claims, that sucks.
  • New mandates for Autism.

We’ll start working on those tomorrow.

Tell Me Again How Centralized Healthcare Administration Is Going to Save Money??

Apologists for national health care or federally-directed-centrally controlled health care, which I believe we’re headed for, say that by curing “fraud and abuse” we can actually insure 31 million more people for less money.  Yeah, Obama said that.

This, of course, ignores the fact that Medicare and Medicaid have had 50 years to cure “fraud and abuse” — and haven’t done it.

It also ignores the fact that the OTHER way they’re covering the costs is by stiffing the elderly and putting them to death when some bureaucrat determines that they’re no longer “economically useful.”  I overstate, but not by much.

But I’m less worried about fraud and abuse than I am about bureaucratic stupidity.  MONUMENTAL bureaucratic stupidity.  Like that shown in this report:

Medicaid unnecessarily spent $271 million on brand-name drugs when much cheaper generic versions were readily available, according to a report from the American Enterprise Institute.

The Institute identified 20 brand-name drugs that Medicaid paid for, calling the outlay on those pharmaceuticals “wasteful spending.”

Medicaid’s utilization rate of generic drugs is only around 64 percent, about 10 percent lower than for the general population, an analysis by the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) found.

Every 2 percent increase in the substitution of generic drugs for brand-name medications reduces Medicaid drug spending by about $1 billion, the GPhA reported.

The potential for savings on drugs is enormous. For the decade 2000 through 2009, the use of generic prescription drugs in place of brand-name products saved the nation’s healthcare system more than $824 billion.

Last year alone, the use of FDA-approved generics saved $139 billion — a 15 percent increase over the prior year — or about $382 million every day.

The increase is largely due to several widely prescribed drugs coming off patent and being replaced by generic versions, including the antidepressants Zoloft and Zocor.

For Medicaid, achieving savings on drugs is increasingly important, The Wall Street Journal observed, because “participation in the federal-state program as well as state children’s health programs will expend” by anywhere from 16 million to 23 million, according to varying estimates.

Mass Health Plans Look Good by Comparison

In Massachusetts we have health insurance plans with deductibles and copays and coinsurance.  For quickie review purposes,

  • A deductible is money you personally pay before the insurance pays anything
  • A copay is a fixed fee you pay each time an incident occurs — doctor visit, prescription, hospital visit, etc.
  • Coinsurance is a percentage sharing between the employee (typically 20% here in MA) and the insurer of costs after the deductible is paid.

So, for example, the new Blue Cross Options plan has three levels of provider, Enhanced, Standard and Basic.  If you go to an enhanced hospital, you only have a copay of $150.  If you go to a standard hospital, you have a copay ($150) after a $500 deductible.  There aren’t any coinsurance costs in that plan.

When coinsurance is present, the maximum out of pocket costs for the insured individual are limited to some level.  So that the deductible PLUS the coinsurance won’t exceed some level (copays, most commonly only for doctor and Rx) aren’t included in the total out of pocket limit, so you can pay more than the maximum, but usually only by the amount of doctor and Rx copays.

Anyhow, I was reading this article in the New York Times (every now and then I risk cancer of the eyeballs by reading that rag) and this sentence struck me:

“For a single person in a group plan, the limit could range from $2,500, on the low end, to as much as $6,000. For family coverage, maximums are usually double that.”

I’ve got to tell you, that made me proud of the carriers in our state.  In no case that I can think of among the approximately 300 clients I work with does the out of pocket maximum come anywhere near $2500 for a single.  $1,500 is far more common.

So we may have the highest costs in the country, but we apparently penalize the patient the least.

Harvard Pilgrim and State of Mass Reach Agreement

I haven’t posted in over a week… lazy me.  Well, there was the Holiday (which included my birthday on July 4) and the heat and the ability to get out and play golf without getting drowned… but mostly, I was lazy.

And the coming week won’t be much better, as my son, Eric, and his girlfriend, Heidi, are coming to visit for a few days.  So I’d best get typing today.

Anyhow, as you know, I’ve not been much of a fan of Gov. Patrick’s half-baked, populist approach to managing the cost of healthcare in the state.  He’s taken the central-diktat theory so beloved of large-government fans and applied it here.

He very simply, via his politically compliant Insurance Commissioner, demanded that

  • the carriers — who make less than 1% and operate more efficiently than any similar carriers anywhere in the US –
  • only collect 2009 premiums
  • despite being billed 2010 claims from doctors & hospitals

Gee.  Only a bureaucrat or politician could call that fair.

Unfortunately (for him but not for us), he was overruled by his own Insurance Commission appeals board. As well he should have been.

Friday, July 2, Harvard and the State reached an agreement.  Here’s what they agreed to:

  • Originally Harvard had asked for rate increases of 8-12%.
  • Now they’re asking (this is for small group, <50-lives accounts only) for 7-11%.
  • And they’re NOT going to go back and collect back premiums for the period from April – June.
  • In return, their rates will come out as permanent rates, not interim rates for the balance of the year.
  • And Harvard Pilgrim is going back to re-open the rate negotiations with the higher-cost hospitals and physicians, despite the fact that rates had already been negotiated.

Where did the savings come from?  Did the providers relent and cut their (often egregious) costs?

Nope.

Did Harvard reveal that they’ve secretly been overcharging by 1%?

Nope.

It came because Harvard isn’t going to charge for reserves.  That means that every time an employer leaves HPHC to go to another carrier, HPHC will have to pay for the “runout claims” (claims incurred during the plan year but presented for payment after the account terminates) out of other people’s reserves.

The Governor has tried to claim that this “proves” his actions got results.  But it’s a politician’s folly.  No money was saved, no money was created… they just robbed Peter to pay Paul.

Justice Is Served

Last week the appeals board of the Department of Insurance (Massachusetts) rejected their own commissioner’s dis-allowance of Harvard Pilgrim’s rate increases.

That’s a convoluted sentence, so let me state it differently.  In April, undoubtedly under pressure from the Governor (who wants to look as if he’s actually doing something in this election year), the Insurance Commissioner rejected virtually all the rate increases requested by the health carriers (Harvard, Tufts, Blue Cross and Fallon).

He said they were excessive, and he set up or allowed to be set up a terribly complex and indecipherable plan of interim rates under which employers wouldn’t know what their actual rates would be for some months.

The carriers — who make less than a 1% margin on their business — cried foul and said the rejection would cost them millions.

But hey, what are millions of my money, or your money, or insurer’s money when it comes to the really important task of getting re-elected?  So the Governor, in a move we’re getting far too used to, ignored the obvious importance of the financial health of the carriers and plunged full speed ahead.

Well, it turns out that not everyone is a low-life politician, interested only in their own skins.  Some folks — including the 3 members of the appeals board — want to try to do the job right.

So they took one long, serious look at the numbers and data filed by Harvard and said, “Yeah, that’s fair.  HPHC is getting charged big bucks by the providers, most notably Partners, so they have the right to recoup the claims they lay out.”

OK, I invented that quote… but that was the essence of what they said.

Deval Patrick’s response?  Predictable.  He called it a travesty, said he’d just begun to fight, yada, yada, yada.  In other words, he proved he couldn’t care less about what’s right and what’s wrong.  All he’s interested in is seeming as if he’s “fighting for the little guy, the small business owner.”

If he REALLY cared about small business, he’d attack the bureaucracy that smothers them, reduce the taxes that afflict them, and devise ways to reward them for hiring new employees.

But, as he proved last week, he doesn’t really give a hoot about the little guy… other than his own 5’6″ of little.

So, Do You REALLY Want to Have Your Health Plan Grandfathered?

Obama’s work-your-way-to-socialized-medicine-at-a-moderate-pace health care “reform” has a “grandfathering” aspect to it.

By having this, President Obama can make the (false) claim that “those who like their plan and want to keep it, can do so.”

This week new regs — surprisingly tough and surprisingly quick to occur — were issued, and many people fear that they’ll lose their grandfather status.  Why?  Because increasing copays by more than $5, or increasing deductibles and coinsurance rates will cause the loss of grandfathered status.

But is that really a big problem?  Well, to answer that you have to know what the penalties are for losing grandfather status.  Basically, by losing their grandfathered status, plans would need to meet specific mandates of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the requirements to

  • provide prevention services with no cost sharing and
  • offer patient protections such as guaranteed access to ob-gyns and pediatricians.

So is that a big deal?  Not in Massachusetts, it’s not.  Worst case, you currently offer a plan with a copay for preventive.  Going from a $20 copay to a $0 copay for preventive, if that’s what’s required, isn’t really all that big a deal.

So a couple of days ago I was all up in arms over this grandfathering thing… but now, at least for plans in Massachusetts, I don’t think it’s a big deal.

What Is a “Family?”

A DOL Administrator (and we know how important administrators are in Obama’s America) has ruled in a way that will greatly expand who’s eligible for health care coverage.

Actually, he/she was ruling on the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regarding time off for parenting duties.  Under that law “parents” may take time off for the “birth or placement of a son or daughter, to bond with a newborn or newly placed son or daughter, and to care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition.”

Furthermore, the law allows that to extend to not just biological parents and parents of adopted children, but also foster children, stepchildren, and legal wards.  Moreover, the law also extends to  people acting “in loco parentis.”

The FMLA regulations provide that persons who are in loco parentis to a child include those with “day-today responsibilities to care for AND financially support a child.” The regulations go on to clarify that a biological or legal relationship is not necessary.

So in the words of the FMLA itself, the in loco parentis includes BOTH the day-to-day care AND financial liability.

But now the Administrator hath spake.  He/she says, “nope.  It doesn’t have to be both; it can be either.”  The DOL then went on to define kinds of relationships that could also entitle the employee to protection under FMLA:

  • an employee who provides day-to-day care but not financial support for his or her unmarried partner’s child (with whom there is no legal or biological relationship)
  • an employee who will share equally in the raising of an adopted child with a same sex partner but who does not have a legal relationship with the child
  • a grandparent who takes in a grandchild and assumes ongoing responsibility because the parents are incapable of providing care
  • an employee who will share equally in the raising of a child with the child’s biological parent
  • an aunt who assumes responsibility for raising a child after the death of the child’s parents

So… how long will it be before this is extended to health insurance?  I understand and empathize with the needs of people who — god bless ‘em — step in to help raise a child who isn’t their responsibility.  Absent them, we’d shove the kid into an orphanage (remember those??).  So this is a more humane reaction.

But I also empathize with the employer who — in the godforsaken economy that (whether the chattering heads on the Networks will admit it or not) continues to limp along and drift toward even worse conditions — is trying to survive and provide jobs and cost-competitive products.

Rules like this, well-meaning though they may be, throw ever more of a societal burden onto the “engine of growth” that is the smaller employer.  Remember the fable of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs — I fear that’s what’s happening in America.