So how much will healthcare reform cost plans in 2011?
As we go into the fourth quarter heavy renewal cycle and as we look at new 1-1 effectives…..what do we do to prepare employers for the immediate expected costs of health care reform? What is the percentage increase that employers should be prepared for right out of the gate? Curiously, the Towers report that got posted on Friday and other prognosticators are remarkably close in their numbers. Unfortunately, this artificial increase number doesn’t even consider another increase variable……annual trend or the annual increase in health care costs. More and more, it seems like a smart strategy to be talking about manufacturing CHANGE in employee behavior to decrease healthcare costs. Politicians in Washington will scream and yell until November about how the insurance companies shouldn’t raise premiums because of the mandates of healthcare reform…..but citizens finally seem to be waking up to the reality of decision making in Washington and the resultant increases in premium and the reduction in plan choices and important covered services. Employers have been pilloried with the impact of artificial government decisions which transfer risk onto their plans two years in a row now. Business owners continue to be attacked. Remember the TARP COBRA subsidy imposed one year ago in March which led to out of control trend and large premium increases? This year’s passage of national reform, also in March, seems like it will have a similar effect. Two good posts below. Your employer groups need help now as they attempt to finance their health plans in a way that will prevent against rising health care costs…..
Employer health care costs are expected to rise 8.2% as the impact of health care reform is assessed.
The annual cost of health care for active employees is projected to rise to an average of $10,730 in 2011, according to a recent survey from consulting firm Towers Watson & Company, New York.
Not since the 1980s have leading employers spent so much time thinking about their health benefit plans as companies look to make sense of the potential impact from health care reform, Towers Watson said. Senior managers are taking a larger role in coming up with the best plan, it said.
- The study of 466 large and midsize employers found 86% plan to increase efforts to encourage employees’ wellbeing. According to the survey, 57% percent said compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is their top priority. By NU ONLINE NEWS SERVICE
Published 9/17/2010
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
Waterbury Republican Monday, September 20, 2010 3:18 AM EDT |
|
State delegation feigns ignorance "Insurers must balance expenses and revenues. So if the government prohibits them from capping annual and lifetime benefits, and orders them to insure people with highest medical risk, create standard policies that cover most conditions and therapies, and pay a greater share of Americans’ out-of-pocket health-care expenses, they must be able to raise premiums across the board. But if the government forbids that, as the president seems to be saying, then insurers must lose money and eventually go out of business or be absorbed by the government. Which, we suppose, is the whole idea." — Republican-American editorial, "Health care in fantasy land," Sept. 12, 2009 Welcome to the reality that Congress’ health-insurance fantasy begat. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and the state’s five Democratic congressional representatives are furious that Connecticut health insurers are seeking immediate premium increases, some exceeding 20 percent. In their filings, the insurers cite rising medical costs and the Obama care legislation as drivers of the need to increase their revenues. The lawmakers, all of whom voted for Obama care, pretend their votes had nothing to do with the requests for premium increases. Sen. Dodd, noting insurers have submitted similar filings in the past, called their requests "reprehensible and dishonest." In a letter to state Insurance Commissioner Thomas Sullivan asking that the requests be rejected, the five House members, all Democrats, largely absolve themselves of culpability: "While we understand that requiring additional benefits may come with some extra costs, empirical evidence suggests that the costs for these specific changes are relatively low, and in some cases negligible." State Sen. Sam Caligiuri, R-Waterbury, challenging Rep. Christopher Murphy, D-5th District, in the Nov. 2 election, called the points made in the letter "too little, too late. Murphy is asking someone else to solve the problem he helped to create. He should have been vigilant about the rising health-care premiums economists warned were coming as a result of Obama care before he so strongly supported it." Indeed, just two days before Sen. Dodd’s Sept. 15 outburst, Michael Tanner, senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote in the New York Post: "… (A) new report from the government’s own actuaries concludes that total U.S. health-care spending will rise faster as a result of the new law than if we had done nothing. The result is that insurance premiums will jump as much as 9 percent next year, especially in the individual and small-group markets. Some customers could see hikes of 20 percent or more." So, were we prescient when we penned our editorial a year ago? Did Mr. Tanner know something Sen. Dodd, Rep. Murphy et al. didn’t? Not really. It’s been out there for all to see for more than a year. If the outraged lawmakers have their way, look for the last two sentences of the Sept. 12, 2009 editorial to come true as well, to the enormous detriment of the nation’s economic and physical health in general, and to Connecticut’s insurance industry in particular. |
Leave a Reply