Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn insurance. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn insurance. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 20 tháng 3, 2013

Dr. Manny: Forcing employees to undergo health screenings for insurance is wrong

  • Doctor With Stethoscope Health Care

Should employees be forced to undergo health screenings to get coverage under their employer’s insurance plan?

I say "No." However, this trend is on the rise, thanks to health care reform.

Since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, many companies are forcing its employees to undergo a physical examination in order to get health insurance, or be levied with a surcharge. I received a letter from my employer at the hospital stating that I needed to see a physician in the human resources department, or I would be forced to pay a penalty of $50 extra each month.

Companies like CVS Caremark are also asking workers to undergo health screenings to measure weight, body fat, glucose levels and other vitals, or pay up to $600 more a year for their health insurance. The reason this is happening is because companies are desperate to try to find ways to cut costs, or perhaps, disqualify some employees from standard policies and recommend they instead look for coverage through a public exchange.

In my opinion, this is fundamentally wrong. It takes away the privacy of the individual, and it’s a form of discrimination. I don’t have a problem with companies promoting healthy habits for its employees – which happens sometimes, almost to the point of harassment.

Yes, people should lose weight, eat healthier, stop smoking and incorporate exercise into their daily routine – we’ve been telling them that for years. But to force them by making them pay, knowing full-well that financial penalties could compromise an individual’s ability to provide for their family is just plain wrong.

Unfortunately, I know this will one day be the norm in our country as we watch our freedoms disappear.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 10 tháng 3, 2013

Survey finds most large employers will keep health insurance benefits after Affordable Care Act

Most large employers don't expect to send their full-time employees to government health exchanges for insurance during the next five years, but some retirees and part-time workers will end up there, a new survey has found.

The outlook for corporate insurance in the long term is less certain.

Only about 26 percent of large employers surveyed were very confident their company will offer healthcare benefits in 10 years. That is a slight increase from last year's 23 percent, but a sharp drop from 73 percent five years ago.

About one-half of the people in the United States who have health insurance receive it from their employers. Most of the rest are enrolled in individual plans or government Medicare and Medicaid programs.

More people are expected to buy health insurance at government-run electronic marketplaces, which will start selling plans for 2014 later this year as part of the 2010 U.S. Affordable Care Act.

Related: ObamaCare Gold Rush: Winners and losers

Consultancy Towers Watson and the National Business Group on Health conducted the annual survey of more than 500 of the nation's largest employers, who self insure, or pay for employee healthcare treatments. The companies were surveyed between November and January, a time when 2013 health plans went into effect and as companies plan for 2014.

During the next five years, 60 percent of large employers said it was not at all likely they would discontinue health care plans for full-time employees and send them to the government exchanges with a financial subsidy for insurance.

Also, 82 percent said they think it was highly unlikely they would direct full-time employees to exchanges without a subsidy.

The Affordable Care Act has implemented a wide range of new rules. More services must be included in plans. Also, companies will need to offer health care insurance to all employees who work more than 30 hours per week or be forced to pay a tax. Because the tax is less than the cost of health care for them, some companies may pay the tax instead.

"There will definitely be employers who will be looking to move certain segments of their workforce towards the public exchanges and those segments could be early retirees and they could be part-timers working under 30 hours," said Randall Abbott, senior consultant at Towers Watson.

Among companies where 20 percent or more of their workforce are part time, 29 percent said it was highly likely that in the next five years they would end health care benefits for employees working less than 30 hours per week. Sixty-seven percent said it was unlikely.

Costs keep rising 
The survey found the average premium cost for employers and employees combined rose about 6 percent in 2013 from 2012. Employees paid, on average, $2,888 in annual premiums, up about 8.7 percent from 2012.

Related: Rate shock: How ObamaCare is causing a surge in insurance premiums 

Total spending on healthcare in the United States was about $2.7 trillion, and is rising at a rate of about 6 percent a year, although last year it was only about 4 percent.

Companies trying to cut health care spending have turned to wellness initiatives, such as charging smokers surcharges. Also, health plans are discouraging health care overspending by employees by putting more of the costs on them.

For instance, instead of paying a monthly premium and a co-pay for doctor visits, many employees may pay a lower monthly premium and then pay for the doctor visit out of a special tax-free savings account until they reach a higher-than-usual deductible.

These consumer-directed health plans in which employees have a tax-free health spending account made up 30 percent of most large employers' health plan enrollment in 2013, up from 25 percent in 2012, the survey found.

Related: Will your doc become extinct under ObamaCare?

About 53 percent of employers offer the plans now and 67 percent plan to do so in 2014. It will be the only option at 23 percent of employers in 2014.

In addition to cutting spending, employers cite the Affordable Care Act's 2018 excise tax as the motivation for the plans, according to Abbott of Towers Watson. The tax, often called the Cadillac tax, is expected to apply to companies that offer high-priced plans as a way to discourage overspending on health care.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 20 tháng 2, 2013

Rate shock: How ObamaCare is causing a surge in insurance premiums

Over the past couple of weeks, many insurance companies have provided guidance in their investor calls that premiums for insurance plans being sold in the individual market could go up as much as 50 percent on average.  

One has to wonder how this is even possible when ObamaCare was passed under the promise of affordability and access.  While some may argue that “rate shock” has become a mechanism for insurance companies to scare the market, the reality is that economics really leave the insurance market with no other choice.  

ObamaCare requires insurers to offer benefit plans on the new exchanges that are relatively generous and would include coverage for maternity, prescription drugs and treatment of mental illness.  These are clearly important areas to cover.  

In order to get this level of coverage, however, many people in their 20s, who are used to buying basic coverage, will now be required to pay more for these required benefits in the exchanges.  In fact, it is expected that more than 75-85 percent of individuals in this age group could end up spending more for insurance in these exchanges than they do currently.  

Some argue that the annual price tag of $1,600 to $2,000 for an insurance plan is still an attractive deal, but if the penalty for not having coverage can be as low as $95 per year, the question remains whether many people will decide to opt out until they absolutely need insurance.

A key reason why insurance premiums are going up is because insurance companies will no longer be able to turn away or charge people more with pre-existing conditions. Even more significant is that these companies would only be able to charge its oldest customers three times as much as their youngest.  

If younger individuals decide to wait until they get sick enough to require health insurance, this will obviously skew the insurance market where the sickest individuals will be the ones who are in the system, thus raising rates for everyone else. Many insurance companies are pushing the government to regulations that would charge higher rates for individuals who don’t sign up for insurance within a certain timeframe.   

What many people also fail to recognize is the income they earn this year will impact the amount of subsidy and/or penalty that will be calculated for 2014.  A recent survey indicated more than 70 to 80 percent of Americans had no idea how this year’s income reporting will impact the calculation of their benefits for next year, and as much as 40 percent of people between the ages of 18 to 34 were unaware that there was even a penalty for not having coverage.    

Supporters of the law have downplayed the notion of rate increases with the idea that the new competitive markets will force insurers to provide competitive rates.  History will tell us, however, that in the days of managed care it is very difficult to ultimately contain costs in the long-term, especially when you factor in community rating and guaranteed issue.  

The other complicating factor in the equation is that, as of Friday, February 15, 2013, only about half of the states have agreed to proceed with setting up the insurance exchanges, while the other half is deferring to the federal government.  What remains to be seen is how effective this dichotomy of market places will be in driving competitive advantage, and how insurance premiums will vary between these two systems. 

The Congressional Budget Office indicated in its estimates that insurance premiums for those buying coverage in the marketplaces would probably be 10 to 13 percent in 2016 because the health plans would be more comprehensive.  The likely outcome from the current effects of ObamaCare is that while rates come down for older people, they may increase for consumers in their 20s, which could leave an older, sicker population now, and an even sicker population down the road.  

The idea that federal subsidies will help shelter the cost of those individuals who need to find affordable coverage is worrisome in light of recent findings.  Several high-risk pools were established to provide assistance for those individuals with pre-existing conditions who needed help in finding coverage.  As recent as last week, it was reported these high-risk pools were running out of money and are underfunded.  

The harsh reality is with an aging population that has a growing need for care of their chronic conditions, the cost for providing adequate coverage will not be cheap, and the biggest fear among employers, states, insurance companies, providers and the consumer is how we will afford the price tag to provide for what has been proposed.  

As premiums continue to rise out of control, the jury is still out as to whether the promises of ObamaCare will actually be able to reel these trends in, or whether it is a balloon that continues to drift away.  

Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu is an acclaimed ophthalmologist and  entrepreneur who has been recognized as an international visionary in the business of medicine and health information technology. He is the founder of VitalSpring Technologies Inc., a privately held enterprise software company focused   on   providing employers with applications to empower them to become more sophisticated purchasers of health care. Dr Potarazu recently founded GoodChime! a social platform for driving consumer engagement in health for which he is the chairman.


View the original article here