Employers Rapidly Shifting Health Care Costs to Workers

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Employers Rapidly Shifting Health Care Costs to Workers

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/employers-shift-health-care-costs-to-workers

By Jon Perr Saturday Mar 13, 2010 2:00pm



As the year-long health care debate approaches its end game in Washington, opponents of reform are being buffeted by a double-whammy of bad news. Last week, a Goldman Sachs analysis documented insurance rates for individuals jumping by up to 50% in some markets. Now, a new survey of large employers found that 56% will hold workers responsible for a greater share of health care costs next year. Coming on the heels of studies showing companies dropping workplace coverage altogether, the data reveal a system of employer-provided health insurance teetering on the brink of collapse.

As the Washington Post reported, the study National Business Group on Health of 507 large companies with over 1,000 employees each found that:

Many say they may charge more to cover spouses, tighten eligibility standards for their health plans and dispense financial rewards or penalties based on the results of certain lab tests. At some companies, overweight employees could be excluded from the most desirable plans.

Meanwhile, employees at many companies can expect significantly higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments.

That cost-shifting will take a number of forms. Twenty-eight percent of employers plan to use spousal surcharges next year, up from 21 percent this year. Meanwhile, 12 percent of employers plan to offer only high-deductible coverage next year. And the percentage of firms considering employee biometric screening and health care appraisals to incentives for hitting weight, blood pressure and cholesterol targets is growing rapidly.

The NBGH survey is just the latest symptom of the rapidly deteriorating system of employer-provided health insurance coverage. A 2007 report from the Economic Policy Institute showed a dramatic decline in employer-provided health care. That drop-off from 64.2% of Americans covered through workplace insurance in 2000 to just 59.7% in 2006 alone added 2.3 million more people to those without coverage. Census data since showed workplace coverage dipped further in 2007, down to an alarming 59.3%. A recent Thomson Reuters survey put the figure for 2009 at a stunning 54.6%. (Data from the U.S. Census revealed that it was only the expansion of government programs including SCHIP and Medicaid which offset the erosion of employer coverage in 2008.)

[Cleita]

1. If we had single payer like Medicare, it would be paid for with P/R tax

proportionate to the payroll paid out. Both employer and employee would contribute and it would be half as costly as it is today. Why is it that Canada can deliver health care comparable in quality to ours for everyone for half of what we spend in health care? Because they have Medicare for everyone.

[jtrockville]

2. Health insurance shouldn't be tied to your employer.

[RC]

3. Health care should not be tied to for Profit insurance companies either.

Why do they down play and ignore what is working for the rest of the world, refuse to discuss it?

Single Payer for all.

[jtrockville]

4. Totally agreed. The entire US "system" is broken.

It isn't effective from any perspective (except the profit-takers').

[Pharlo]

5. Well, hopefully, this

will jar the "Oh, I have EXCELLENT coverage and I don't want ANYONE tampering with it!" brigade out of their air of complacency with the status quo and give them pause for a moment.

Then again, maybe not. Not yet, not until it hits them DIRECTLY in the pocket and they start having to actually pay out. Rather like HCR under the Clinton's. A lot of people failed to see what was coming in regard to health care costs.

Oh well, one good thing for individuals with these plans, as they pay more and receive less, they won't need to worry about being taxed on their 'Cadillac Plans'. See, there's an upside to everything, you just have to look for it.