New CBO AHCA Score Confirms What We Already Knew

The CBO has just released their final score for the revised version of the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Find how the CBO scored this revised piece of legislation and what it means for you in this article by Mark J. Mazur from Tax Policy Center

Meet the new estimate of the American Health Care Act (AHCA).  It looks a lot like the old one.

On May 24, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its estimate of the revised AHCA, which the House of Representatives passed on May 7.  The revised AHCA allows states to opt out of ACA requirements establishing essential health benefits and permits states establishing high-risk pools to allow insurers to set premiums based on health status.  The modified bill sets aside $8 billion to help subsidize these pools.

Like its predecessor, the revised AHCA has four distinct major components.

  1. One would cut taxes paid by high-income individuals (lower taxes on capital gains, divided, and interest income for households with annual income over $250,000) and by companies in specific industries: health insurance, medical devices, prescription drugs, and indoor tanning salons.
  2. The second is a grab bag of tax reductions, such as loosened rules for flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts, repeal of the tax on individuals who can afford but don’t buy adequate health coverage, and a further delay of the excise tax on high-cost health plans (the so-called “Cadillac Tax”).
  3. The third restructures the tax credits that subsidize health care coverage, moving from existing income-related tax credits for purchasing health insurance on the ACA Marketplaces to age-related tax credits to purchase health insurance.
  4. And the fourth cuts Medicaid spending reducing coverage and essentially paying for the tax cuts.

The chart below shows the tax changes (the first two major components mentioned) go almost entirely to the highest earning households, while providing little or no benefit to the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution.  In fact, TPC estimates that a $37,000 average annual tax cut will go to the 1 percent of the population with the highest earnings (annual income of over $772,000).  The top 0.1 percent of the income distribution would receive an annual tax cut of over $200,000 (annual income over $3.9 million).  (Note that this chart shows the estimates for 2022, but incorporates the tax law changes for 2023 as the AHCA phases in some of the tax changes).

The bottom line: CBO estimates confirm the AHCA is largely a tax bill paired up with Medicaid cuts to offset the costs. And, as in the earlier version of the bill, almost all the benefits go to the highest income households in the country.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Mazur M. (2017 May 24). New CBO AHCA score confirms what we already knew [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/new-cbo-ahca-score-confirms-what-we-already-knew


The Facts on the GOP Health Care Bill

Do you know all the facts behind the American Health Care Act (AHCA)? Check out this article by Fact Check and find out about all the details behind the GOP new health care legislation.

House Republicans released their replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act on March 6. How does the GOP’s American Health Care Act differ from the ACA? We look at the major provisions of the amended version of the bill, as of May 4. (The legislation passed the House on May 4 and now goes to the Senate for consideration.)

Is there a requirement to have insurance or pay a tax?

No. For all months after Dec. 31, 2015, the bill eliminates the tax penalties that the ACA imposes on nonexempt individuals for not having health insurance, as well as employers with 50 or more full-time workers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. (To be clear, unless this bill becomes law quickly, those filing their 2016 tax returns will still be subject to the penalty.)

Are insurance companies required to offer coverage regardless of preexisting conditions?

Yes, but there’s a penalty for not having continuous coverage. Under both the ACA and the GOP bill, insurers can’t deny coverage to anyone based on health status. Under the GOP bill, they are required, however, to charge 30 percent higher premiums for one year, regardless of health status, to those entering the individual market who didn’t have continuous coverage, which is defined as a lapse of coverage of 63 days or more over the previous 12 months.

However, an amendment proposed in late April allows states to obtain a waiver that would enable insurers to charge more to people with preexisting conditions who do not maintain continuous coverage. Such policyholders could be charged higher premiums based on health status for one year. After that, provided there wasn’t another 63-day gap, the policyholder would get a new, less expensive premium that was not based on health status. This change would begin in 2019, or 2018 for those enrolling during special enrollment periods.

States with such a waiver would also have to have either a “risk mitigation program,” such as a high-risk pool, or participate in a new Federal Invisible Risk Sharing Program, as a House summary of the amendment says. Beyond those programs, another amendment to the bill would provide $8 billion in federal money over five years to financially aid those with preexisting conditions who find themselves facing higher premiums in waiver states.

For more on this waiver program, see our May 4 article, “The Preexisting Conditions Debate.”

What happens to the expansion of Medicaid?

It will be phased out.

Prior to the ACA, Medicaid was available to groups including qualified low-income families, pregnant women, children and the disabled. The ACA expanded eligibility to all individuals under age 65 who earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (about $16,643 a year for an individual), but only in states that opted for the expansion. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have opted in to the expansion, which includes enhanced federal funding, so far. More than 11 million newly eligible adults had enrolled in Medicaid through March 2016, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation of data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Under the Republican health care plan, no new enrollment can occur under this Medicaid expansion, with enhanced federal funds, after Dec. 31, 2019. States that haven’t already opted in to the expansion by March 1, 2017, can’t get the ACA’s enhanced federal funding for the expansion-eligible population.

To be clear, the bill doesn’t eliminate the Medicaid expansion coverage for those who are enrolled prior to 2020 in the current expansion states. But if those enrollees have a break in coverage for more than one month after Dec. 31, 2019, they won’t be able to re-enroll (unless a state wanted to cover the additional cost itself).

The Republican plan includes another notable change to Medicaid. It would cap the amount of federal funding that states can receive per Medicaid enrollee, with varying amounts for each category of enrollee, such as children, and the blind and disabled. Currently, the federal government guarantees matching funds to states for qualifying Medicaid expenses, regardless of cost. Under the GOP bill, states have the option of receiving a block grant, rather than the per-capita amounts, for traditional adult enrollees and children – not the elderly or disabled. States also have the option of instituting work requirements for able-bodied adults, but not pregnant women.

Are insurers required to cover certain benefits?

The latest version of the bill requires insurers to provide 10 essential health benefits mandated by the ACA, unless a state obtains a waiver to set its own benefit requirements. The ACA’s essential health benefits required insurance companies to cover 10 health services: ambulatory, emergency, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services and devices, laboratory services, preventive care and chronic disease management, and pediatric services including dental and vision.

Beginning in 2020, states could set their own essential health benefits by obtaining a waiver.

At that point, state requirements could vary, as they did before the ACA was enacted. For instance, a 2009 report from the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, a group representing insurance companies, said 47 states had a mandate for emergency service benefits, while 23 mandated maternity care and only three mandated prescription drug coverage.

State Medicaid plans would not have to meet the essential health benefits requirement after Dec. 31, 2019.

Are there subsidies to help individuals buy insurance? How do they differ from the Affordable Care Act?

There are two forms of financial assistance under the ACA: premium tax credits (which would change under the GOP plan) and cost-sharing to lower out-of-pocket costs (which would be eliminated).

Let’s look at the premium tax credits first. They would be available to individuals who buy their own coverage on the individual, or nongroup, market. But instead of a sliding scale based on income, as under the ACA, the Republican plan’s tax credits are based on age, with older Americans getting more. (The plan, however, allows insurers to charge older Americans up to five times more than younger people, as we will explain later.)

The ACA tax credits also take into account the local cost of insurance, varying the amount of the credit in order to put a cap on the amount an individual or family would have to spend for their premiums. The Republican plan doesn’t do that. (See this explanation from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation for more on how the ACA tax credits are currently calculated.)

There are income limits under the GOP bill. Those earning under $75,000, or $150,000 for a married couple, in modified adjusted gross income, get the same, fixed amounts for their age groups — starting at $2,000 a year for those under age 30, increasing in $500 increments per decade in age, up to $4,000 a year for those 60 and older. The tax credits are capped at $14,000 per family, using the five oldest family members to calculate the amount. This new structure would begin in 2020, with modifications in 2018 and 2019 to give more to younger people and less to older people.

For those earning above those income thresholds, the tax credit is reduced by 10 percent of the amount earned above the threshold. For instance, an individual age 60 or older earning $100,000 a year would get a tax credit of $1,500 ($4,000 minus 10 percent of $25,000).

That hypothetical 60-year-old gets $0 in tax credits under the ACA. But if our 60-year-old earns $30,000 a year, she would likely get more under the ACA than the GOP plan: In Franklin County, Ohio, for instance, the tax credit would be $6,550 under the ACA in 2020 and $4,000 under the Republican plan. (This interactive map from the KFF shows the difference in tax credits under the health care plans.)

As for the cost-sharing subsidies available now under the ACA — which can lower out-of-pocket costs for copays and other expenses for those earning between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level  — those would be eliminated in 2020. However, the GOP bill sets up a Patient and State Stability Fund, with $100 billion in funding over nine years with state matching requirements, that can be used for various purposes, including lowering out-of-pocket costs of a state’s residents. An additional $30 billion was added to this fund for other programs: $15 billion would be used to set up the Federal Invisible Risk Sharing Program, another reinsurance program, and $15 billion is set aside specifically for maternity and mental health coverage.

Small-business tax credits would end in 2020. The health insurance marketplaces stay, but the tax credits can be used for plans sold outside of those marketplaces. And the different levels of plans (bronze, silver, etc.) based on actuarial value (the percentage of costs covered) are eliminated; anyone can buy a catastrophic plan, not just those under 30 as is the case with the ACA.

What does the bill do regarding health savings accounts?

It increases the contribution limits for tax-exempt HSAs, from $3,400 for individuals and $6,750 for families now to $6,550 and $13,100, respectively. It allows individuals to use HSA money for over-the-counter drugs, something the ACA had limited to only over-the-counter drugs for which individuals had obtained a prescription.

There were so-called winners and losers in the individual market under the ACA. How would that change under this bill?

Both the current law and the Republican proposal primarily impact the individual market, where 7 percent of the U.S. population buys its own health insurance. As we’ve written many times, how the ACA affected someone in this market depended on their individual circumstances — and the same goes for the House Republicans’ plan. In general, because the ACA said that insurers could no longer vary premiums based on health status and limited the variation based on age, older and sicker individuals could have paid less than they had before, while younger and healthier individuals could have paid more.

The GOP plan allows a wider variation in pricing based on age: Insurers can charge older individuals up to five times as much as younger people, and states can change that ratio. Under the ACA, the ratio was 3:1. So, younger individuals may see lower premiums under this bill, while older individuals could see higher premiums.

Older Americans do get higher tax credits than younger Americans under the Republican plan, but whether that amounts to more or less generous tax credits than under the ACA depends on other individual circumstances, including income and local insurance pricing. Those with low incomes could do worse under the GOP plan, while those who earned too much to qualify for tax credits under the ACA (an individual making more than $48,240) would get tax credits.

We would encourage readers to use the Kaiser Family Foundation’s interactive map to see how tax credits may change, depending on various circumstances. “Generally, people who are older, lower-income, or live in high-premium areas (like Alaska and Arizona) receive larger tax credits under the ACA than they would under the American Health Care Act replacement,” KFF says. “Conversely, some people who are younger, higher-income, or live in low-premium areas (like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Washington) may receive larger assistance under the replacement plan.”

A few weeks after the bill was introduced, House Republicans, through an amendment, made a change to a tax provision to create placeholder funding that the Senate could use to boost tax credits for older Americans, as we explain in the next answer.

Also, some individuals with preexisting conditions could see higher premiums under the legislation, if they don’t maintain continuous coverage and live in states that received waivers for pricing some plans based on health status.

Which ACA taxes go away under the GOP plan?

Many of the ACA taxes would be eliminated.

As we said, the bill eliminates all fines on individuals for not having insurance and large employers for not offering insurance. Also, beginning in 2017, for high-income taxpayers, the bill eliminates the 3.8 percent tax on certain net investment income. The 0.9 percent additional Medicare tax on earnings above a threshold stays in place until 2023. The bill repeals the 2.3 percent tax on the sale price of certain medical devices in 2017 and the 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services (effective June 30, 2017). It also gets rid of the annual fees on entities, according to the IRS, “in the business of providing health insurance for United States health risks,” as well as fees on “each covered entity engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs.”

It reduces the tax on distributions from health savings accounts (HSAs) not used for qualified medical expenses from 20 percent to 10 percent and the tax on such distributions from Archer medical savings accounts (MSAs) from 20 percent to 15 percent. It lowers the threshold for receiving a tax deduction for medical expenses from 10 percent to 5.8 percent of adjusted gross income. (Originally, the bill lowered the threshold to 7.5 percent, but House Republicans changed that to create some flexibility for potential funding changes the Senate could make. A congressional aide told us that the change is expected to provide $85 billion in spending over 10 years that the Senate could use to boost the tax credit or provide other support for Americans in the 50-64 age bracket.)

And from 2020 through 2025, the bill suspends the so-called “Cadillac tax,” a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost insurance plans offered by employers.

Will young adults under the age of 26 still be able to remain on their parents’ plans?

Yes. The bill does not affect this provision of the ACA.

How does the bill treat abortion? 

It puts a one-year freeze on funding to states for payments to a “prohibited entity,” defined as one that, among other criteria, provides abortions other than those due to rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. This would include funding to Planned Parenthood under Medicaid, which is most of the organization’s government funding. Under current law, Planned Parenthood can’t use federal money for abortions, except those in cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother’s life.

Also under the GOP plan, tax credits can’t be used to purchase insurance that covers abortion beyond those three exceptions. Health insurance companies would still be able to offer “separate coverage” for expanded coverage of abortions, which individuals could then purchase on their own.

How many people will have insurance under the plan, as compared with the ACA?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the legislation, as passed by the House, would lead to 14 million fewer people having insurance in 2018 and 23 million fewer insured in 2026, compared with current law under the ACA.
How much will the bill cost, as compared with the ACA?

CBO estimated that the legislation passed by the House would reduce federal deficits by $119 billion over the next decade, 2017-2026. It would reduce revenues by $992 billion, mostly by repealing the ACA’s taxes and fees, and reduce spending by $1.11 trillion for a net savings of $119 billion, according to CBO.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Robertson L., Gore D., Schipani V.  (2017 May 24). The facts on the GOP health care bill [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/the-facts-on-the-gop-health-care-bill/


10 Misconceptions About Saving for Medical Care in Retirement

Are you properly prepared for your medical costs during retirement? Take a look at this great article from Employee Benefits Advisors to find out what are the top misconceptions people have about medical costs when planning for their retirement by Marlene Y. Satter.

Retirement isn’t the only thing workers have trouble saving for; the other big gap in planning is health care.

According to a Voya Financial survey, Americans just aren’t ready to pay for the health care they might need in retirement. Their estimates of what they might need are low—when they estimate them at all, that is—and their savings are even lower.

With worries over money woes keeping people up at night—so says a CreditCards.com poll—the only worry that surpassed “having enough saved for retirement” was “health care and insurance.”

And consider, if you will, all the turmoil in the health insurance market these days, what with potential changes to—or an outright repeal of—the Affordable Care Act waiting in the wings, not to mention the skyrocketing costs of both care and coverage.

Americans seem to have a lot to worry about when it comes to their finances.

In light of all this uncertainty, it’s no wonder that the little matter of paying for health care is keeping people awake.

But, considering all that, it’s even more surprising that there are so many common misconceptions about health care, its cost and how to pay for it at large in the general population.

American workers are not just ill prepared for retirement, they’re even more ill prepared for any illness or infirmity that may come along with it.

According to research from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), a 65-year-old man would need $127,000 in savings while a 65-year-old woman would need $143,000—thanks to a longer projected lifespan—to give each of them a 90 percent chance of having enough savings to cover health care expenses in retirement.

But that doesn’t appear to have filtered its way down to U.S. workers, who are blissfully (well, maybe not so blissfully) ignorant of the mountain of bills that probably lies ahead.

While demographics play a role, there are smaller differences among some groups than one might otherwise expect. In addition, it’s also rather surprising where Americans plan to get the money to pay for whatever care they receive, and how far they think that money will stretch when it also has to pay for food, clothing, shelter and any activities or other necessities that come along with retirement.

Read on to see 10 misconceptions workers have about how and how much they think they’ll pay for medical care in retirement. As you’ll see, some generations are more prone to certain errors than others.

10. Workers just aren’t estimating how much health care will cost them in retirement.

Perhaps they’d rather not know—but according to the poll, 81 percent of Americans have not estimated the total amount health care will cost them in retirement; among them are 77 percent of boomers. Retirees haven’t estimated those costs, either; in fact, just 21 percent of them have. But that’s actually not that bad, when considering that among Americans overall, only 14 percent have actually done—or tried to do—the math.

And among those who have tried to calculate the cost, 66 percent put them at $100,000 or less while an astonishing 31 percent estimated just $25,000 or less.

9. People with just a high school education or less, and whites, are slightly more likely than those who went to college, and blacks, to have attempted to figure it out.

The great majority among all those demographic groups just aren’t looking at the numbers, with 88 percent of black respondents and 79 percent of white respondents saying they have not estimated how much money it will take to pay their medical costs throughout retirement.

And while 80 percent of those with a high school diploma or less say they haven’t run the numbers, those who spent more time in school have spent even less time doing the calculations—with 81 percent of those with some college and 82 percent of those who graduated college saying they have not estimated medical costs.

8. Millennials are the most likely to underestimate health care costs in retirement.

A whopping 74 percent of millennials are among those lowballing what they expect to spend on health care once they retire, figuring they won’t need more than $100,000—and possibly less.

Not that they really know; 85 percent haven’t actually tried to calculate their total health care expenses for retirement. But they must be believers in the amazing stretching dollar, with 42 percent planning to use general retirement savings as the primary means of paying for health expenses in retirement, excluding Medicare.

GenXers, by the way, were the most likely to guess correctly that the bill will probably be higher than $100,000—but even there, only 28 percent said so.

7. They have surprisingly unrealistic expectations about where they’ll get the money to pay for medical care.

Excluding Medicare, 34 percent intend to use their general retirement savings, such as 401(k)s, 403(b)s, pensions and IRAs, as the primary means of paying for care, while 25 percent are banking on their Social Security income, 7 percent would use health savings accounts (HSAs) and 6 percent would use emergency savings.

That last is particularly interesting, since so few people have successfully managed to set aside a sizeable emergency fund in the first place.

6. Despite their potential, HSAs just aren’t feasible for many because of their income.

HSAs do offer ways to set aside more money not just for medical bills in retirement but also to boost retirement savings overall, and come with fairly generous contribution limits. But people with lower incomes often can’t even hit the maximum for retirement accounts—so relying on an HSA might not be realistic for all but those with the highest incomes.

Yet people with lower incomes were more likely than those who made more to say HSAs would be the main way they’d pay for medical expenses. Among those who said they’d be relying on HSAs to pay for care in retirement, 5 percent of those with incomes less than $35,000 and 14 percent of those with incomes between $35,000–$50,000 said that would be the way they’d go.

Just 9 percent of those with incomes between $50,000–$75,000, 7 percent of those with incomes between $75,000–$100,000 and 9 percent of those with incomes above $100,000 chose them.

5. A few are planning on using an inheritance to pay for medical bills in retirement.

It’s probably not realistic, and there aren’t all that many, but some respondents are actually planning on an inheritance being the chief way they’ll pay for their medical expenses during retirement.

Millennials and GenXers were the most likely to say that, at 2 percent each—but they may not have considered that the money originally intended for an inheritance might end up going to pay for other things, such as caregiving or child care, and indeed much of their own retirement money could end up paying for care for elderly parents. A lot more people end up acting as caregivers—especially among the sandwich generation—and may find that relying on inheriting money from the people they’re caring for was not a realistic expectation.

4. Women don’t know, guess low.

Just 13 percent of women have gone to the trouble of estimating how much health care will cost them during retirement, but that didn’t stop 32 percent from putting that figure at $25,000 or less.

And that’s really bad news. It’s particularly important for women to be aware of the cost of health care, since not only do they not save enough for retirement to begin with—42 percent only contribute between 1–5 percent, the lowest level, compared with 34 percent of men, often thanks to lower salaries and absences from the workplace to raise children or act as caregivers—but their longer lifespans mean they’ll have more years in which to need health care and fewer options to obtain it other than by paying for it.

Men are frequently cared for by (predominantly female) caregivers at home, while women tend to outlive any family members who might be willing or able to do the same for them.

3. Men don’t know, but guess higher.

While the same percentage of women and men have not estimated their retirement health care expenses (81 percent), men were more likely than women (24 percent, compared with 15 percent) to come up with an estimate higher than $100,000.

2. The highest-income households are most likely to have tried to estimate medical cost needs during retirement.

Probably not surprisingly, households with an income of $100,000 or more were the most likely to have tried to pin a dollar figure to health care needs, with 21 percent saying they’d done so.

Households with incomes between $50,000–$75,000 were least likely to have done so, with just 11 percent of them trying to anticipate how much they’ll need.

And just because they have more money doesn’t mean their estimates were a whole lot more accurate—only 38 percent of those $100,000+ households thought they’d need more than $100,000 to see them through any needed medical care during retirement, while 59 percent—the great majority—figured they could get by on $100,000 or even less.

1. Where they live doesn’t seriously affect their estimates, although it will seriously affect their cost of care.

Among those who have tried to anticipate how much they’ll need in retirement for medical care, there’s not a huge difference among how many guessed too low—even though where they live can have a huge effect on how much they’ll end up paying, particularly for long-term care.

While the most expensive regions for LTC tend to be the northeast and the west coast, and the cheapest are the south and midwest, there’s not a great deal of variance among those who estimate they can get by on care for $100,000 or less—even if people live in one of the most expensive regions. Sixty-seven percent of those in the northeast said care wouldn’t cost more than that, while 63 percent of those in the midwest, 71 percent of those in the south and 61 percent of those in the west said the same thing.

When it came to those who said they’d need more than $100,000, 24 percent of those in the west thought they’d need that much; so did 20 percent of those in the midwest, just 18 percent of those in the northeast and 17 percent of those in the south.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Satter M. (2017 April 24). 10 misconceptions about saving for medical care in retirement [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.benefitspro.com/2017/04/24/10-misconceptions-about-saving-for-medical-care-in?ref=hp-news&page_all=1


The Effects of Ending the Affordable Care Act’s Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments

Take a look at this interesting article by Kaiser Family Foundation and see how the cost-sharing mandate under the ACA will be affected in the AHCA.

Controversy has emerged recently over federal payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) related to cost-sharing reductions for low-income enrollees in the ACA’s marketplaces.

The ACA requires insurers to offer plans with reduced patient cost-sharing (e.g., deductibles and copays) to marketplace enrollees with incomes 100-250% of the poverty level. The reduced cost-sharing is only available in silver-level plans, and the premiums are the same as standard silver plans.

To compensate for the added cost to insurers of the reduced cost-sharing, the federal governments makes payments directly to insurance companies. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost of these payments at $7 billion in fiscal year 2017, rising to $10 billion in 2018 and $16 billion by 2027.

The U.S. House of Representatives sued the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Obama Administration, challenging the legality of making the cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments without an explicit appropriation. A district court judge has ruled in favor of the House, but the ruling was appealed by the Secretary and the payments were permitted to continue pending the appeal. The case is currently in abeyance, with status reports required every three months, starting May 22, 2017.

If the CSR payments end – either through a court order or through a unilateral decision by the Trump Administration, assuming the payments are not explicitly authorized in an appropriation by Congress – insurers would face significant revenue shortfalls this year and next.

Many insurers might react to the end of subsidy payments by exiting the ACA marketplaces. If insurers choose to remain in the marketplaces, they would need to raise premiums to offset the loss of the payments.

We have previously estimated that insurers would need to raise silver premiums by about 19% on average to compensate for the loss of CSR payments. Our assumption is that insurers would only increase silver premiums (if allowed to do so by regulators), since those are the only plans where cost-sharing reductions are available. The premium increases would be higher in states that have not expanded Medicaid (and lower in states that have), since there are a large number of marketplace enrollees in those states with incomes 100-138% of poverty who qualify for the largest cost-sharing reductions.

There would be a significant amount of uncertainty for insurers in setting premiums to offset the cost of cost-sharing reductions. For example, they would need to anticipate what share of enrollees in silver plans would be receiving reduced cost-sharing and at what level. Under a worst case scenario – where only people eligible for sharing reductions enrolled in silver plans – the required premium increase would be higher than 19%, and many insurers might request bigger rate hikes.

While the federal government would save money by not making CSR payments, it would face increased costs for tax credits that subsidize premiums for marketplace enrollees with incomes 100-400% of the poverty level.

The ACA’s premium tax credits are based on the premium for a benchmark plan in each area: the second-lowest-cost silver plan in the marketplace. The tax credit is calculated as the difference between the premium for that benchmark plan and a premium cap calculated as a percent of the enrollee’s household income (ranging from 2.04% at 100% of the poverty level to 9.69% at 400% of the poverty in 2017).

Any systematic increase in premiums for silver marketplace plans (including the benchmark plan) would increase the size of premium tax credits. The increased tax credits would completely cover the increased premium for subsidized enrollees covered through the benchmark plan and cushion the effect for enrollees signed up for more expensive silver plans. Enrollees who apply their tax credits to other tiers of plans (i.e., bronze, gold, and platinum) would also receive increased premium tax credits even though they do not qualify for reduced cost-sharing and the underlying premiums in their plans might not increase at all.

We estimate that the increased cost to the federal government of higher premium tax credits would actually be 23% more than the savings from eliminating cost-sharing reduction payments. For fiscal year 2018, that would result in a net increase in federal costs of $2.3 billion. Extrapolating to the 10-year budget window (2018-2027) using CBO’s projection of CSR payments, the federal government would end up spending $31 billion more if the payments end.

This assumes that insurers would be willing to stay in the market if CSR payments are eliminated.

Methods

We previously estimated that the increase in silver premiums necessary to offset the elimination of CSR payments would be 19%.

To estimate the average increase in premium tax credits per enrollee, we applied that premium increase to the average premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan in 2017. The Department of Health and Human Services reports that the average monthly premium for the lowest-cost silver plan in 2017 is $433. Our analysis of premium data shows that the second-lowest-cost silver plan has a premium 4% higher than average than the lowest-cost silver plan.

We applied our estimate of the average premium tax credit increase to the estimated total number of people receiving tax credits in 2017. This is based on the 10.1 million people who selected a plan during open enrollment and qualified for a tax credit, reduced by about 17% to reflect the difference between reported plan selections in 2016 and effectuated enrollment in June of 2016.

We believe the resulting 23% increase in federal costs is an underestimate. To the extent some people not receiving cost-sharing reductions migrate out of silver plans, the required premium increase to offset the loss of CSR payments would be higher. Selective exits by insurers (e.g., among those offering lower cost plans) could also drive benchmark premiums higher. In addition, higher silver premiums would somewhat increase the number of people receiving tax credits because currently some younger/higher-income people with incomes under 400% of the poverty level receive a tax credit of zero because their premium cap is lower than the premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan. We have not accounted for any of these factors.

Our analysis produces results similar to recent estimates for California by Covered California and a January 2016 analysis from the Urban Institute.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Levitt L., Cox C., Claxton G., (2017 April 25). The effects of ending the affordable care act's cost-sharing reduction payments[Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/the-effects-of-ending-the-affordable-care-acts-cost-sharing-reduction-payments/


Why Private Exchanges Haven't Taken Off As Predicted

Great article from our partner, United Benefit Advisors (UBA) by Paul Rooney.

While the health care affordability crisis has become so significant, questions still linger—will private exchanges become a viable solution for employers and payers, and will they will continue to grow? Back in 2015, Accenture estimated that 40 million people would be enrolled in private exchange programs by 2018; the way we see this model’s growth today doesn’t speak to that. So, what is preventing them from taking off as they were initially predicted? We rounded up a few reasons why the private exchange model’s growth may be delayed, or coming to a halt.

They Are Not Easy to Deploy

There is a reason why customized benefits technology was the talk of the town over the last two years; it takes very little work up-front to customize your onboarding process. Alternatively, private exchange programs don’t hold the same reputation. The online platform selection, build, and test alone can get you three to six months into the weeds. Underwriting, which includes an analysis of the population’s demographics, family content, claims history, industry, and geographic location, will need to take place before obtaining plan pricing if you are a company of a certain size. Moreover, employee education can make up a significant time cost, as a lack of understanding and too many options can lead to an inevitable resistance to changing health plans. Using a broker, or an advisor, for this transition will prove a valuable asset should you choose to go this route.

A Lack of Education and a Relative Unfamiliarity Revolves Around Private Exchanges

Employers would rather spend their time running their businesses than understanding the distinctions between defined contribution and defined benefits models, let alone the true value proposition of private exchanges. With the ever-changing political landscape, employers are met with an additional challenge and are understandably concerned about the tax and legal implications of making these potential changes. They also worry that, because private exchanges are so new, they haven’t undergone proper testing to determine their ability to succeed, and early adoption of this model has yet to secure a favorable cost-benefit analysis that would encourage employers to convert to this new program.

They May Not Be Addressing All Key Employer and Payer Concerns

We see four key concerns stemming from employers and payers:

  • Maintaining competitive benefits: Exceptional benefits have become a popular way for employers to differentiate themselves in recruiting and retaining top talent. What’s the irony? More options to choose from across providers and plans means employees lose access to group rates and can ultimately pay more, making certain benefits less. As millennials make up more of today’s workforce and continue to redefine the value they put behind benefits, many employers fear they’ll lose their competitive advantage with private exchanges when looking to recruit and retain new team members.
  • Inexperienced private exchange administrators: Because many organizations have limited experience with private exchanges, they need an expert who can provide expertise and customer support for both them and their employees. Some administrators may not be up to snuff with what their employees need and expect.
  • Margin compression: In the eyes of informed payers, multi-carrier exchanges not only commoditize health coverage, but perpetuate a concern that they could lead to higher fees. Furthermore, payers may have to go as far as pitching in for an individual brokerage commission on what was formerly a group sale.
  • Disintermediation: Private exchanges essentially remove payer influence over employers. Bargaining power shifts from payers to employers and transfers a majority of the financial burden from these decisions back onto the payer.

It Potentially Serves as Only a Temporary Solution to Rising Health Care Costs

Although private exchanges help employers limit what they pay for health benefits, they have yet to be linked to controlling health care costs. Some experts argue that the increased bargaining power of employers forces insurers to be more competitive with their pricing, but there is a reduced incentive for employers to ask for those lower prices when providing multiple plans to payers. Instead, payers are left with the decision to educate themselves on the value of each plan. With premiums for family coverage continuing to rise year-over-year—faster than inflation, according to Forbes back in 2015—it seems private exchanges may only be a band-aid to an increasingly worrisome health care landscape.

Thus, at the end of it all, change is hard. Shifting payers’, employers’, and ultimately the market’s perspective on the projected long-term success of private exchanges will be difficult. But, if the market is essentially rejecting the model, shouldn’t we be paying attention?

See the original article Here.

Source:

Rooney P. (2017 April 26). Why private exchanges haven't taken off as predicted [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://blog.ubabenefits.com/why-private-exchanges-havent-taken-off-as-predicted


Poll: Majority Sees GOP Health Bill as Step Backward

Have you wondered how other Americans feel about the repealing of the ACA? Check out in this great article by Jonathan Easley from The Hill about a poll taken from Harvard detailing how people across the country really feel about the passing of the AHCA.

A majority of voters see the GOP healthcare bill as a step backward and want to see the Senate make significant changes to it.

According to data from the latest Harvard-Harris Poll survey, provided exclusively to The Hill, 55 percent view the House-passed bill as a step backward, compared to 45 percent who described it as a step forward.

Seventy-seven percent of Republicans view the bill as a step forward, while 77 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents view it as a step back.

Fifty-seven percent of voters said they want to see the Senate make significant changes to the bill if it is to be passed into law, including 64 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of independents.

Sixty percent of voters want the Senate bill to ensure people with preexisting conditions can get affordable healthcare.

An amendment to the House bill offers state waivers that would allow carriers to charge people more based on their health.

“The voters want to neither go back to ObamaCare nor to the House bill,” said Harvard-Harris co-director Mark Penn.

“The Senate is going to have to thread the needle here and craft a new compromise. The voters are mostly concerned with pre-existing conditions and are against any penalty for not having insurance. Solve the preconditions dilemma and they might have something that could get public support.”

The Harvard-Harris online survey of 2,006 registered voters was conducted May 17–20. The partisan breakdown is 36 percent Democrat, 32 percent Republican, 29 percent independent and 3 percent other. The poll uses a methodology that doesn't produce a traditional margin of error.

The Harvard–Harris Poll is a collaboration of the Harvard Center for American Political Studies and The Harris Poll. The Hill will be working with Harvard-Harris throughout 2017. Full poll results will be posted online later this week.

Satisfaction with the bill cut sharply along partisan lines.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Easley J. (2017 May 24). Poll: majority sees GOP health bill as step backward[Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/335003-poll-majority-sees-gop-health-bill-as-step-backward


An Update on Health Care and Tax Reform

Make sure you are staying up-to-date with all the recent changes happening in healthcare. Here is a great article by Joseph Minarik from the Committee for Economic Development to help you stay informed with everything going on with the new healthcare legislation.

The status of what may be the Administration’s two highest legislative priorities, health care reform and tax reform, remains uncertain.

The overwhelming consensus in Washington is that the Administration and the Congress have virtually no alternative but to either complete or abandon health care reform before taking up tax reform. That is because both an Administration health care reform (to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, more formally known as the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), and any Administration tax reform, can be enacted only under reconciliation procedures in the Senate (which prevent a filibuster that would require 60 votes to break). By budget process rules, there can be only one reconciliation process in progress at one time. The current process was designed expressly for health care reform. The health care reform process cannot continue if tax reform is begun.

A decision to abandon health care reform would be extremely painful to the many Republicans in Congress who made repealing Obamacare their signature campaign promise. This would certainly be an admission of failure in the current environment, with Republicans controlling the White House and both chambers of the Congress. But that delays and reduces the time available to complete any attempted tax reform. Of course, the relevant policy players can have tax reform conversations among themselves, but that is not the same as actually engaging in a public debate over actual legislative language.

So the current debate over health care legislation is time-sensitive. And passing the House health care bill, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), was extraordinarily difficult. The Senate cannot pass the AHCA, and their passing any similar bill would likely be even more difficult than was the process in the House.

To begin, Democrats will provide zero votes to “repeal” what they hold as the signature achievement of the Obama Administration. Republicans have 52 votes in the Senate, and thus, even under the reconciliation procedure, can afford to lose only two votes. (The Vice President would be called on to break a 50-50 tie.) Thus, the Senate Republicans’ margin for error is extremely small, and the ideological spread of their membership is probably wider than is that of their caucus on the House side.

And under these daunting arithmetic constraints, the Senate health bill must thread several very small substantive needles.

The bill will be under very tight fiscal constraints. The Republicans want the health bill to reduce the deficit, so that the money it saves can be used to pay for tax reform. This is expected even after the repeal of many of the taxes and fees and some of the spending cuts that Obamacare used to finance itself.

The programmatic expectations on the bill will be considerable. Opinion surveys showed “Obamacare” to be highly unpopular. But when not identified with the bill, many of Obamacare’s key features were found to be resoundingly popular – even among Republicans, and even in the very same surveys. One such feature was eliminating discrimination against persons with pre-existing conditions. At the same time, one of the highest House Republican priorities was reducing premiums. The House Republicans could find no alternative way to reduce premiums but to water down the protections for those with pre-existing conditions, in some instances through provisions that were less than totally transparent. The Senate Republicans are likely to be less accepting of such provisions.

The House Republican AHCA sought to attract younger, healthier households to purchase insurance (without the mandate that their Members abhor) by raising the relative premiums of older enrollees. That is unlikely to sit well in the Senate – or at least well enough with a margin of only two votes.

Next on what could be a very long list of concerns is the repeal of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. There are 20 Republican Senators who represent states that have expanded Obamacare. As much as some Republicans opposed the Medicaid expansion, the same Senators are unwilling to impose a sudden reduction in their states’ federal funding to repeal it. Many of those Republicans also do not want to remove health care coverage from the working families who were covered by the expansion.

In the broadest terms, Republican Senators will not want to take away a benefit that has been given to the citizens of their states – even though those Senators may have on a principled basis opposed granting that benefit in the first place. But achieving everything that they want to achieve in this bill, subject to a rigorous budget constraint, may prove impossible.

And then, assuming the Senate manages to pass a bill, it will then have to reconcile its very different bill with that of the House. It is always possible that many House and Senate Republicans will decide to sacrifice their preferences to that the Administration can have its first-year victory to set a positive tone (and avoid a highly negative one). But the first instinct of a Member of Congress is almost always self-preservation, and the fondest hope and expectation is that the next election will see the triumph of his or her ideological view and thus the ability to achieve all of the goals that cannot be obtained in the present because of the service of doctrinal purity.

Whether health care reform succeeds or not, the President and the Congress are sure to find that tax reform is every bit as complex as is health care reform. Again, they will begin with the tightest budget constraint, along with a lengthy list of priorities. They already have discussed tax cuts for large businesses and small businesses, public corporations and LLCs, and of course a massive tax cut for the middle class. How all of that happens without widening the already excessive and growing budget deficit is a true puzzle. At present, the House Ways & Means Committee chair continues to maintain that he will put forward a revenue-neutral bill by relying on the so-called “border-adjustment tax” which CED has discussed in a recent policy brief, and which has proven highly unpopular in the Senate. This makes the prospects even more murky.

If all of this fails, which it may or may not, the Administration and the Congress will find themselves at the end of the year with no particular legislative achievement. There is some possibility that they would respond to that conundrum by following the path of least resistance and proposing a large net tax cut, forcing the political opposition to vote against it and thus cross many taxpayers. But that, of course, would worsen the already troubling budget outlook.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Minarik J. (2017 May 17). An update on health care and tax reform [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.ced.org/blog/entry/an-update-on-health-care-and-tax-reform


Health Reform Expert: Here’s What HR Needs to Know About GOP Repeal Bill Passing

The House of Repersentives has just passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), new legislation to begin the repeal process of the ACA. Check out this great article from HR Morning and take a look how this new legislation will affect HR by Jared Bilski.

Virtually every major news outlet is covering the passage of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) by the House. But amidst all the coverage, it’s tough to find an answer to a question that’s near and dear to HR: What does this GOP victory mean for employers? 

The AHCA bill, which passed in the House with 217 votes, is extremely close to the original version of the legislation that was introduced in March but pulled just before a vote could take place due to lack of support.

While the so-called “repeal-and-replace” bill would kill many of the ACA’s taxes (except the Cadillac Tax), much of the popular health-related provisions of Obamacare would remain intact.

Pre-existing conditions, essential benefits

However, the new bill does allow states to waive certain key requirements under the ACA. One of the major amendments centers on pre-existing conditions.

Under the ACA, health plans can’t base premium rates on health status factors, or pre-existing conditions; premiums had to be based on coverage tier, community rating, age (as long as the rates don’t vary by more than 3 to 1) and tobacco use. In other words, plans can’t charge participants with pre-existing conditions more than “healthy” individuals are charged.

Under the AHCA, individual states can apply for waivers to be exempt from this ACA provision and base premiums on health status factors.

Bottom line: Under this version of the AHCA, insurers would still be required to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions — but they’d be allowed to charge astronomical amounts for coverage.

To compensate for the individuals with prior health conditions who may not be able to afford insurance, applying states would have to establish high-risk pools that are federally funded. Critics argue these pools won’t be able to offer nearly as much coverage for individuals as the ACA did.

Under the AHCA, states could also apply for a waiver to receive an exemption — dubbed the “MacArthur amendment” — to ACA requirement on essential health benefits and create their own definition of these benefits.

Implications for HR

So what does all this mean for HR pros? HR Morning spoke to healthcare reform implementation and employee benefits attorney Garrett Fenton of Miller & Chevalier and asked him what’s next for the AHCA as well as what employers should do in response. Here’s a sampling of the Q&A:

HR Morning: What’s next for the AHCA?
Garrett Fenton: The Senate, which largely has stayed out of the ACA repeal and replacement process until now, will begin its process to develop, amend, and ultimately vote on a bill … many Republican Senators have publicly voiced concerns, and even opposition, to the version of the AHCA that passed the House.

One major bone of contention – even within the GOP – was that the House passed the bill without waiting for a forthcoming updated report from the Congressional Budget Office.  That report will take into account the latest amendments to the AHCA, and provide estimates of the legislation’s cost to the federal government and impact on the number of uninsured individuals …

… assuming the Senate does not simply rubber stamp the House bill, but rather passes its own ACA repeal and replacement legislation, either the Senate’s bill will need to go back to the House for another vote, or the House and Senate will “conference,” reconcile the differences between their respective bills, and produce a compromise piece of legislation that both chambers will then vote on.

Ultimately the same bill will need to pass both the House and Senate before going to the President for his signature.  In light of the House’s struggles to advance the AHCA, and the razor-thin margin by which it ultimately passed, it appears that we’re still in for a long road ahead.

HR Morning: What should employers be doing now?
Garrett Fenton: At this point, employers would be well-advised to stay the course on ACA compliance. The House’s passage of the AHCA is merely the first step in the legislative process, with the bill likely to undergo significant changes and an uncertain future in the Senate. The last few months have taught us nothing if not the impossibility of predicting precisely how and when the Republicans’ ACA repeal and replacement effort ultimately will unfold.  To be sure, the AHCA would have a potentially significant impact on employer-sponsored coverage.

However, any employer efforts to implement large-scale changes in reliance on the AHCA certainly would be premature at this stage.  The ACA remains the law of the land for the time being, and there’s still a long way to go toward even a partial repeal and replacement.  Employers certainly should stay on top of the legislative developments, and in the meantime, be on the lookout for possible changes to the current guidance at the regulatory level.

HR Morning: Specifically, how should employers proceed with their ACA compliance obligations in light of the House passage of the AHCA?Garrett Fenton: Again, employers should stay the course for the time being, and not assume that the AHCA’s provisions impacting employer-sponsored plans ultimately will be enacted.  The ACA remains the law of the land for now.  However, a number of ACA-related changes are likely to be made at the regulatory and “sub-regulatory” level – regardless of the legislative repeal and replacement efforts – thereby underscoring the importance of staying on top of the ever-changing guidance and landscape under the Trump administration.

Fenton also touched on how the “MacArthur amendment” and the direct impact it could have on employers by stating it:

“… could impact large group and self-funded employer plans, which separately are prohibited from imposing annual and lifetime dollar limits on those same essential health benefits.  So in theory, for example, a large group or self-funded employer plan might be able to use a “waiver” state’s definition of essential health benefits – which could be significantly more limited than the current federal definition, and exclude items like maternity, mental health, or substance abuse coverage – for purposes of the annual and lifetime limit rules.  Employers thus effectively could be permitted to begin imposing dollar caps on certain benefits that currently would be prohibited under the ACA.”

See the original article Here.

Source:

Bilski J. (2017 May 5). Health reform expert: here's what HR needs to know about GOP repeal bill passing [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.hrmorning.com/health-reform-expert-heres-what-hr-needs-to-know-about-gop-repeal-bill-passing/


Discovery for Health and Welfare Benefit Plans: Required ERISA Reporting—Form 5500

Make sure you are aware of all the requirements for Form 5500 reporting. Take a look at this great article from our partner, United Benefit Advisors (UBA) about how to properly file Form 5500 by Anne B. Vandeveer.

Most companies are fully aware of Form 5500 reporting requirements related to their 401(k) plans, but are less familiar with the Form 5500 reporting requirements for their health and welfare benefit plans.

Requirements: Most employer-sponsored health and welfare benefit plans, including, but not limited to, group health, dental, vision, life insurance, disability insurance, voluntary worksite benefits (typically, but not always), and health flexible spending account (FSA) plans are subject to the reporting requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974.

A Form 5500 is due to be filed with the Department of Labor (DOL) within seven months after the end of the plan year.

Exemptions: While there are a few common exceptions to filing for smaller plans and those sponsored by certain governmental and church plans, most employers who are filing Form 5500 for their retirement plans will also have Form 5500 reporting requirements for their health and welfare plans. Certain funding types (VEBAs, Trusts) may not be exempt based on size, however.

Normal Annual Filing: Once Schedule A information is available on the plan, from the carrier or third-party administrator (TPA), this information, along with some general participant enrollment information, is used to complete the filing. So long as company ownership, participation, and plans offered haven't changed from year to year, it's a fairly simply process.

It is worth reviewing the filing history of all plans subject to ERISA for all prior years to rule out any delinquencies in advance of filing for the current year. If all is in order, the filing deadline is the last day of the seventh month after the end of the plan year. Extensions, of up to 2.5 months, are available if the company applies prior to the initial deadline by filing Form 5558 with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Failure to File and Remedy: If a Form 5500 filing is determined to be delinquent, the company is potentially subject to penalties imposed by the DOL (up to $1,100 per day) if the DOL discovers this before the return is filed electronically. The company can voluntarily "enter" the DOL's delinquent filer amnesty program. The program is formally named the Delinquent Filer Voluntary Compliance Program (DFVCP) and entering it will eliminate the risk of any future penalty associated with the delinquent Form 5500 returns. However, the DOL still imposes a lower, capped dollar penalty, which is assessed on a "per plan" basis.

The first step for a DFVCP filing is in defining the applicable plans and plan years along with the due date for each plan, historically. Correction is generally suggested as far back as the delinquency goes, or minimally as far back as documentation can be provided. That said, many companies choose to internally review all options and risks.

Preparation of Filings: The DOL mandates electronic filings under its EFAST2 system and it can be challenging for employers to prepare their own Form 5500 filings. Defining whether, and which of, your plans are subject to the ERISA reporting requirements is the best first step of the ERISA reporting process.

Because the forms resemble IRS tax forms, companies often assume that an accountant is needed for preparation. This is not necessarily the case and it is more common to rely on a benefits consultant with domain expertise. These consultants routinely determine filing requirements, have experience dealing directly with the DOL (not IRS), and transmit hundreds of filings annually.

That said, it is important to note that, regardless of who prepares the filing, it remains the sole responsibility of the employer, or Plan Sponsor, when it comes to Form 5500 transmissions or failures to file.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Vandeveer A. (2017 April 18). Discovery for health and welfare benefit plans: required ERISA reporting-form 5500[Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://blog.ubabenefits.com/discovery-for-health-and-welfare-benefit-plans-required-erisa-reporting-form-5500


Healthcare Services: Employees Want to Find Less Costly Care, but Need HR’s Help

Have your employees been looking for new ways to reduce their healthcare cost? Check out this article from HR Morning on how HR can be a great tool for helping your employees find the best healthcare for their budget by Jared Bilski.

HR pros have been urging employees to ask questions and shop around for less-costly, high quality health care for years now — and it looks like many employees are finally heeding the call.

That’s the good news regarding healthcare cost transparency.

Step in the right direction

Specifically, 50% of individuals have tried to find out how their health care would cost before getting care, according to a recent report by the Public Agenda and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

A little more than half (53%) of the individuals who compared the prices of common healthcare services did, in fact, save money.

The report also broke down the various places employees turned to for price info before getting medical care and found:

  • 55% went to a friend, relative or colleague
  • 48% went to their insurance company (by phone or online)
  • 46% went to their doctor
  • 45% asked a receptionist or other doctor’s office staffer
  • 31% went to the hospital billing department
  • 29% asked a nurse
  • 20% relied on the Internet (other than their insurance company’s website), and
  • 17% used a mobile phone app.

Another encouraging finding from the report: Employees don’t think saving money on healthcare services means receiving lower quality care. In fact, 70% of individuals said higher prices aren’t a sign of better quality healthcare.

The bad news

But the report wasn’t all good news.

For one thing, many employees are painfully unaware of the disparity in pricing for similar healthcare services. In fact, fewer than 50% of Americans are aware that hospitals and doctor’s prices can vary.

There are also problems when employees do inquire or shop around for less costly health care.

Sixty three percent of Americans say there isn’t enough information about how much medical services cost.

And when employees do at least inquire about cost before seeking treatment, most don’t think the next and most critical step: comparing multiple providers’ prices. Just 20% of the study respondents who asked about pricing went on to compare pricing.

Where HR comes in

Overall, the report is good news for employers, and firms should take the findings as evidence employees are finally ready to help find ways to lower the company’s overall health costs.

But it’s up to HR pros to help them succeed.

One way: Rolling out “how to” session on healthcare service comparison tools and finding providers — and this is especially important for small- and mid-sized companies. Employees at these firms are more likely to seek medical services based solely on location.

As Tibi Zohar, president and CEO of DoctorGlobe put it:

“The reality for most small to mid-size companies is that their health plan members tend to continue to seek health care at the nearest hospital or the one recommended by their doctors or friends.”

Another effective tactic: Adding incentives when employees use cost transparency tools in the form of premium discounts, contributions to HSAs or FSAs or even old-fashioned gift cards.

Remember, the transparency tools are those that employees can relate to personally and show exactly how much they will pay out-of-pocket for medical services.

See the original article Here.

Source:

Bilski J. (2017 April 21). Healthcare services: employees want to find less costly care, but need HR's help [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address http://www.hrmorning.com/healthcare-services-employees-want-to-find-less-costly-care-but-need-hrs-help/