Why Taxing Health Care Plans is a Terrible Idea
The Myth of "Cadillac" Health Plans
By BILL SALGANIK
January 12, 2010
<snip>
The myth of rich-benefit “Cadillac” plans is the first flaw in the theory. By 2019 the benefits tax would hit one-fifth of households making between $50,000 and $75,000 a year, according to figures from the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. The tax would pose a heavy burden on working families.
Studies by the Economic Policy Institute and for the policy journal Health Affairs show that plans with big premiums don't necessarily have big benefits.
Rather, high premiums go with an older workforce (like Diamond, a 40-year employee), because older people use more medical services. Smaller employers are also more likely to be affected; they pay, on average, 18 percent more than large employers for the same benefits, according to the White House Council of Economic Advisers. And health costs also tend to be higher for women, so work groups that have large female representation—such as teachers, nurses and telephone call center employees—are more likely to be taxed.
Diamond is also more likely to be hit by the tax because of where she lives. An average family policy in Miami costs more than $20,000 a year—meaning the average policy comes close to the “Cadillac” definition in the Senate's legislation—while a policy with the same benefits in Phoenix costs less than $15,000, according to the actuarial consulting company Milliman. The difference has nothing to do with “Cadillac” benefits. It’s a function of prices and medical practice styles in the different markets.
Betty Diamond’s coverage, negotiated by the Communications Workers with AT&T, is good, but hardly lavish. She had to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket a few years ago when she had cancer surgery. And she pays nearly $1,000 a year out of pocket for prescriptions; her cancer exams also turned up a hereditary problem with her lungs, which requires her to take medicine to avoid dangerous blood clots. She goes for regular checkups to her oncologist to make sure the cancer is still in check, with a co-payment that's going up this year, from $20 to 10 percent of the charges, under the new CWA contract.
Second, supporters say the tax would hold down health costs by pushing employers into less expensive plans. If there were cheaper plans out there that offered equivalent benefits, opponents counter, employers would already be in them. Instead, the only way employers can make plans less expensive is by cutting benefits—and that's what nearly two-thirds of employers plan to do, according to a survey by Mercer, a benefits consultant. And that means higher co-pays and deductibles.
Ah, say supporters of the tax, if consumers face higher out-of-pocket costs, they’ll cut out unnecessary care and shop for better prices. Studies show that consumers do use less care when they have to pay more, but they cut back on necessary as well as unnecessary treatments.
That can lead to higher costs down the road. For example, one study tracking higher co-pays for office visits and prescriptions found that workers did cut back—but that savings were offset by higher hospital admissions, especially for older workers and those with chronic health problems.
Even with higher co-pays, Diamond says that, having survived cancer twice, she's not about to skip an oncology checkup, never mind pass on needed surgery. Nor should we want a health policy that will force her to.
"Personally, I don't go to the doctor unless I have to," she says. But, mindful of her life-threatening medical conditions, "I tend to do what the doctor tells me."
Third, supporters of the benefits tax also say that people like Diamond don't have to worry about a tax on benefits. Sure, the employers would trim benefits but wages, they say, would go up as health costs came down.
A report from the Economic Policy Institute tracking health costs and wage growth over the past 20 years concluded that isn't so. While there’s some connection between wages and benefit costs, employers are more likely to keep any savings for themselves rather than pass them on to workers, especially in an economy with high unemployment.
Betty Diamond didn’t need a study to tell her that. She’s served on two CWA bargaining committees where her employer fought hard to keep health costs down. And neither time did management offer to pass the savings back to the workers in extra pay hikes. “Absolutely not. Please,” Diamond says—when she stops laughing at the idea.
And while this isn’t a great time for unions in bargaining, at least organized workers have some leverage. “They never give you anything,” Betty Diamond says. “You only get what the union bargains for. And they wouldn't give it to you if the union wasn't there.”
---
source--
http://pnhp.org/news/2010/january/why-taxing-health-care-plans-is-a-terrible-idea
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
