Opinion of the Court

Supreme Court of the United States, June 30, 2014

BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL.

and

CONESTOGA WOOD SPECIALTIES CORPORATION ET AL., PETITIONERS 13–356 v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.

Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court.

We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners.

In holding that the HHS mandate is unlawful, we reject HHS’s argument that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships. The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.

Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do.

****

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

Importantly, the decisions whether to claim benefits under the plans are made not by Hobby Lobby or Conestoga, but by the covered employees and dependents, in consultation with their health care providers. Should an employee of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga share the religious beliefs of the Greens and Hahns, she is of course under no compulsion to use the contraceptives in question. But “[n]o individual decision by an employee and her physician — be it to use contraception, treat an infection, or have a hip replaced — is in any meaningful sense [her employer’s] decision or action.” Grote v. Sebelius, 708 F. 3d 850, 865 (CA7 2013) (Rovner, J., dissenting). It is doubtful that Congress, when it specified that burdens must be “substantia[l],” had in mind a linkage thus interrupted by independent decisionmakers (the woman and her health counselor) standing between the challenged government action and the religious exercise claimed to be infringed. Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Allowing an employer to deny coverage of family planning services for employees, strictly on the basis of the employer’s own religion, is yet one more flaw in our highly dysfunctional system of health care financing – a system that is being perpetuated by the Affordable Care Act. If we had a single payer national health program, the employer would not be involved.

As Justice Ginsburg stated in her dissent, a woman’s use of family planning services should be “the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.” If religious beliefs enter into that decision, it should be the religious beliefs of the individual and not anyone else.

Department of Health and Human Services, June 19, 2014

This proposed rule would specify additional options for annual eligibility redeterminations and renewal and re-enrollment notice requirements for qualified health plans offered through the Exchange, beginning with annual redeterminations for coverage for plan year 2015.

In paragraph (j)(1), we propose that if an enrollee remains eligible for enrollment in a QHP through the Exchange upon annual redetermination, and the product under which the QHP in which he or she was enrolled remains available for renewal, consistent with 45 CFR §147.106, such enrollee will have his or her enrollment in a QHP under the product renewed unless he or she terminates coverage, including termination of coverage in connection with voluntarily selecting a different QHP, in accordance with §155.430. In this situation, we propose that the QHP in which the enrollee will be renewed will be selected according to the following order of priority: first, in the same plan as the enrollee’s current QHP, unless the current QHP is not available; second, if the enrollee’s current QHP is not available, the enrollee’s coverage will be renewed in a plan at the same metal level as the enrollee’s current QHP; third, if the enrollee’s current QHP is not available and the enrollee’s product no longer includes a plan at the same metal level as the enrollee’s current QHP, the enrollee’s coverage will be renewed in a plan that is one metal level higher or lower than the enrollee’s current QHP; and fourth, if the enrollee’s current QHP is not available and the enrollee’s product no longer includes a plan that is at the same metal level as, or one metal level higher or lower than the enrollee’s current QHP, the enrollee’s coverage will be renewed in any other plan offered under the product in which the enrollee’s current QHP is offered in which the enrollee is eligible to enroll.

http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/508_CMS-9941-P-OFRv-6-26-14.pdf

****

Exchange Plan Renewals: Many Consumers Face Sizeable Premium Increases in 2015 Unless They Switch Plans

By Elizabeth Carpenter
Avalere, June 26, 2014

Under the Affordable Care Act, federal premium assistance is tied to the second lowest cost silver plan (“benchmark plan”) in a given region.  Subsidized exchange enrollees who select a more expensive plan must pay the difference—dollar for dollar—between the benchmark plan premium and their selection.  In six of nine states analyzed by Avalere, the 2014 benchmark silver plan will lose benchmark status in 2015. Further, in seven of the nine states, the lowest cost silver plan will also change in 2015. 

“Most enrollees in 2014 chose a plan based on the monthly premium. However, the lowest cost plans in 2014 may no longer be low cost in 2015,” said Elizabeth Carpenter, director at Avalere Health. “Before consumers renew their 2014 plan, they should consider the tradeoff between continuity of care and lower monthly premiums.”

“Two-thirds of people enrolling in silver plans are choosing one of the two lowest cost silver options,” said Caroline Pearson, vice president at Avalere. “The competitive landscape for plans is changing in 2015. However, the premium subsidies are tied to the benchmark plan and a percentage of income. Consumers have to pay the difference if they enroll in a plan more expensive than the benchmark.  Those receiving federal premium subsidies may need to switch plans in 2015 to avoid paying more than the limits established by the ACA, and the impact will be more profound for lower-income consumers.”

http://www.avalerehealth.net/expertise/managed-care/insights/exchange-plan-renewals-many-consumers-face-sizeable-premium-increases-in-20

****

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

Acknowledging the complexity of the administration of the exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, HHS has decided to simplify the process by making renewal of plan enrollment automatic unless the enrollee decides on a different option. It is estimated that about 95 percent of enrollees will qualify for automatic renewal, and undoubtedly many will passively accept this hassle-free option. That may not be a wise choice.

The Avalere report indicates that the benchmark silver tier plan – the plan with the second lowest premium in the silver tier – will change in many of the exchanges since premium bids are changing for most plans. Since the enrollee is responsible for the full balance of the premium above the benchmark plan, net premiums for the enrollees could increase significantly unless the person opted to change to next year’s benchmark plan or a plan close to it.

As Avalere director Elizabeth Carpenter states, “(consumers) should consider the tradeoff between continuity of care and lower monthly premiums.” This means that those current enrollees who do not passively accept higher premiums will be forced to choose between higher premiums or a change in their narrow provider networks, the latter likely resulting in disruption of continuity of care.

Further, according to the HHS rule, the individual could be transferred to a different metal tier, thereby losing eligibility for the subsidies for cost sharing, though that would likely occur only in exchanges that have few choices.

Even something as simple as “automatic renewal” becomes complex when you try to rely on market dynamics to satisfy private insurers. Imagine if at renewal time you didn’t have to make a decision on what premiums you could afford, or on what provider networks you would choose when none of them quite fit, or where you might fall based on subsidy eligibility redetermination.

Imagine instead if the concept of renewal did not even exist – you were simply automatically enrolled for life. We really do need to replace this boondoggle with a single payer national health program – quality health care for everyone at a price we can afford.

Department of Health and Human Services, June 19, 2014

This proposed rule would specify additional options for annual eligibility redeterminations and renewal and re-enrollment notice requirements for qualified health plans offered through the Exchange, beginning with annual redeterminations for coverage for plan year 2015.

In paragraph (j)(1), we propose that if an enrollee remains eligible for enrollment in a QHP through the Exchange upon annual redetermination, and the product under which the QHP in which he or she was enrolled remains available for renewal, consistent with 45 CFR §147.106, such enrollee will have his or her enrollment in a QHP under the product renewed unless he or she terminates coverage, including termination of coverage in connection with voluntarily selecting a different QHP, in accordance with §155.430. In this situation, we propose that the QHP in which the enrollee will be renewed will be selected according to the following order of priority: first, in the same plan as the enrollee’s current QHP, unless the current QHP is not available; second, if the enrollee’s current QHP is not available, the enrollee’s coverage will be renewed in a plan at the same metal level as the enrollee’s current QHP; third, if the enrollee’s current QHP is not available and the enrollee’s product no longer includes a plan at the same metal level as the enrollee’s current QHP, the enrollee’s coverage will be renewed in a plan that is one metal level higher or lower than the enrollee’s current QHP; and fourth, if the enrollee’s current QHP is not available and the enrollee’s product no longer includes a plan that is at the same metal level as, or one metal level higher or lower than the enrollee’s current QHP, the enrollee’s coverage will be renewed in any other plan offered under the product in which the enrollee’s current QHP is offered in which the enrollee is eligible to enroll.

http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/50…

****

Exchange Plan Renewals: Many Consumers Face Sizeable Premium Increases in 2015 Unless They Switch Plans

By Elizabeth Carpenter
Avalere, June 26, 2014

Under the Affordable Care Act, federal premium assistance is tied to the second lowest cost silver plan (“benchmark plan”) in a given region.  Subsidized exchange enrollees who select a more expensive plan must pay the difference—dollar for dollar—between the benchmark plan premium and their selection.  In six of nine states analyzed by Avalere, the 2014 benchmark silver plan will lose benchmark status in 2015. Further, in seven of the nine states, the lowest cost silver plan will also change in 2015.

“Most enrollees in 2014 chose a plan based on the monthly premium. However, the lowest cost plans in 2014 may no longer be low cost in 2015,” said Elizabeth Carpenter, director at Avalere Health. “Before consumers renew their 2014 plan, they should consider the tradeoff between continuity of care and lower monthly premiums.”

“Two-thirds of people enrolling in silver plans are choosing one of the two lowest cost silver options,” said Caroline Pearson, vice president at Avalere. “The competitive landscape for plans is changing in 2015. However, the premium subsidies are tied to the benchmark plan and a percentage of income. Consumers have to pay the difference if they enroll in a plan more expensive than the benchmark.  Those receiving federal premium subsidies may need to switch plans in 2015 to avoid paying more than the limits established by the ACA, and the impact will be more profound for lower-income consumers.”

http://www.avalerehealth.net/expertise/managed-care/insights/exchange-pl…

Acknowledging the complexity of the administration of the exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, HHS has decided to simplify the process by making renewal of plan enrollment automatic unless the enrollee decides on a different option. It is estimated that about 95 percent of enrollees will qualify for automatic renewal, and undoubtedly many will passively accept this hassle-free option. That may not be a wise choice.

The Avalere report indicates that the benchmark silver tier plan – the plan with the second lowest premium in the silver tier – will change in many of the exchanges since premium bids are changing for most plans. Since the enrollee is responsible for the full balance of the premium above the benchmark plan, net premiums for the enrollees could increase significantly unless the person opted to change to next year’s benchmark plan or a plan close to it.

As Avalere director Elizabeth Carpenter states, “(consumers) should consider the tradeoff between continuity of care and lower monthly premiums.” This means that those current enrollees who do not passively accept higher premiums will be forced to choose between higher premiums or a change in their narrow provider networks, the latter likely resulting in disruption of continuity of care.

Further, according to the HHS rule, the individual could be transferred to a different metal tier, thereby losing eligibility for the subsidies for cost sharing, though that would likely occur only in exchanges that have few choices.

Even something as simple as “automatic renewal” becomes complex when you try to rely on market dynamics to satisfy private insurers. Imagine if at renewal time you didn’t have to make a decision on what premiums you could afford, or on what provider networks you would choose when none of them quite fit, or where you might fall based on subsidy eligibility redetermination.

Imagine instead if the concept of renewal did not even exist – you were simply automatically enrolled for life. We really do need to replace this boondoggle with a single payer national health program – quality health care for everyone at a price we can afford.

Shifting toward Defined Contributions — Predicting the Effects

By Kevin A. Schulman, M.D., Barak D. Richman, J.D., Ph.D., and Regina E. Herzlinger, D.B.A.
The New England Journal of Medicine, June 26, 2014

When Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) attracted national attention by joining Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) in proposing a sweeping privatization of Medicare, he was variously vilified and praised for suggesting that Medicare should be converted from a defined-benefit program to a defined-contribution program. Although there has been little congressional action to advance the Wyden–Ryan plan, defined-contribution programs are becoming increasingly prevalent in employer-sponsored health insurance and may ultimately bring about substantial changes in U.S. health care.

A defined-benefit program provides specific benefits to enrollees when those benefits are needed. For example, a defined-benefit pension program provides payments of specified amounts to retirees. Defined-benefit health insurance, such as Medicare and most private plans, pays for specific health care services when eligible beneficiaries demand such services. In contrast, a defined-contribution program — like most typical 401(k) retirement plans — provides certain financial support to beneficiaries before any benefits are consumed, and beneficiaries then spend those funds to meet their eventual expenses. In defined-contribution pension plans, only the financial contribution is defined, and the extracted benefits are determined by the payment and investment preferences of the beneficiary.

Economists have posited that defined-contribution health insurance plans offer two key benefits. First, enrollees in such plans receive more choice than they would in the one-size-fits-all plans typically offered by employers. They can thus consider the quality of plans and express their preferences for various features of benefits packages, such as open or limited provider networks and low or high deductibles. Second, defined-contribution plans can give employers greater certainty about costs, insulating them from unpredictable health care inflation. Such plans might also curb or reverse the trend toward employees’ passively shouldering the growing costs of employer-based defined-benefits plans. (Between 2003 and 2013, employer spending increased by 77%, while employees’ costs increased by 89%.1) In a competitive labor market, with the transparency of a defined-contribution plan, employers would have to compensate employees through higher wages for any shifting of additional health care costs, although increased compensation might only need to match employees’ perceptions of the value of the lost benefits.

One largely overlooked attraction of defined-benefit plans is related to the political economy of firms. Because the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance often hides what employers pay for employees’ health insurance, many employees demand costly plans without realizing that the employer’s contribution ultimately reduces their own take-home pay. A defined-contribution plan, in contrast, makes insurance premiums more transparent, thereby inducing employees to demand more affordable health plans because they are aware of the full amount they pay. For example, when human resources consultancy Aon Hewitt helped companies implement insurance plans under a defined-contribution system in 2013, 42% of employees purchased less expensive plans, 32% purchased coverage similar to what they had previously had, and only 26% bought more expensive coverage.

The intellectual appeal of the Wyden–Ryan plan rested on this logic. Its supporters argued that because the risk of higher-than-expected health care inflation would be shifted onto Medicare enrollees, who would be empowered to exercise consumer choice, the market dynamics would change. On one hand, there would be greater cost consciousness behind consumer demand; on the other hand, supply would reflect greater competition for consumers’ premium dollars.

If Medicare reforms do not adequately address the excessive costs of health care, converting the program to a defined-contribution plan could leave many seniors uninsured or exposed to unaffordable health care bills, thereby undermining one of the fundamentals of the Medicare program — protection against financial risk — while leaving providers with major revenue shortfalls.

Although Medicare seems unlikely to be transformed into a defined-contribution program in the immediate future, the private insurance market is shifting toward defined contributions. Many large companies — including IBM, Duke Energy, and Time Warner — are now pursuing defined-contribution strategies for their retirees; others, including Walgreens, are doing so for current workers. Some companies have designed private insurance exchanges through which workers and retirees can purchase insurance plans, and others may encourage retirees to purchase insurance through private exchanges or the public exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act. A recent survey suggests that 58% of employers have confidence in private exchanges as a viable alternative to the plans they currently offer employees and that “employers are intrigued by the potential of private exchanges to control cost increases, reduce administrative burdens and provide greater value.”

Some observers have expressed legitimate concerns that employers could limit their payments for health benefits by increasing wages by amounts less than those of employees’ medical costs. In theory, a competitive labor market would ensure that total employee compensation remained at competitive levels, thereby preventing employers from using defined-contribution mechanisms in this way. But competitive labor markets require compensation to reflect productivity. In rigid sectors of the economy, defined-contribution strategies could burden employees disproportionately with the weight of medical inflation.

Yet the appeal of defined-contribution plans — whether as part of Medicare reform or in the form of changing benefits for retirees and workers — remains potent. Defined-contribution strategies reveal to employees and health insurance customers any cost increases that exceed the growth of wages, and individuals purchasing insurance on exchanges have shown a growing preference for lower-priced plans that increase cost sharing for health expenditures. In 2013, for example, Aon Hewitt found that the proportion of employees who selected high-deductible plans (most of which included a contribution to a health savings account) increased from 12% to 39%, while enrollment in preferred provider organizations decreased from 70% to 47%.

Defining the contributions to health care expenditures before containing health care costs might be placing the cart before the horse. On the other hand, making such inflation visible and painful to consumers is one tool for bringing costs under control.

Whether or not providers and consumers are ready, defined-contribution benefit plans are growing in popularity. They will unquestionably have both short- and long-term consequences for providers. They will bring greater transparency to health care costs and health care inflation, and they will probably give insurance purchasers greater motivation to attend to insurance prices, stimulating the provision of lower-cost insurance.

Because insurance premiums are ultimately the primary source of revenue for providers, cost consciousness among consumers will impose new fiscal constraints on providers. For some highly leveraged providers — especially those who expanded costly infrastructures that relied on lucrative fee-for-service revenue models — even small changes in the private health insurance market could have substantial financial effects. In this world, providers’ future success will depend on their ability to sustain themselves on a flattening allowance.

Over the long term, greater consumer sensitivity to insurance premiums will affect all providers. It is a truism that the growth of health care costs — or, phrased differently, the growth of provider resources — will be bounded by the growth of health care revenue. A dramatic shift in the revenue available to providers will impose strong cost pressure. And such pressure, in turn, can be seen as a new opportunity for developing more cost-efficient delivery mechanisms.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1314391

****

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

This article from the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine should alarm anyone who cares about ensuring that everyone has access to health care. We are now seeing a rapid conversion of health care financing from defined benefit (paying for appropriate health care) to defined contribution (paying a specific dollar amount while placing upon the beneficiary the responsibility of using those funds to find affordable care, if possible). This places the burden of health care inflation most heavily on those who have the greatest health care needs when these individuals and families are already over-burdened with our deficient system of health care financing.

Look at the explanation that these authors give as to why defined contribution is a superior method of financing health care:

• Patients would not be stuck with a one-size-fits-all plan of comprehensive benefits that covers their essential care but rather would be allowed to forgo crucial health care services that they could not afford (permitting them to accept suffering, disability and even death as a small price to pay for not selecting a plan that they couldn’t afford).
• They would have the right to plans that exclude from provider networks physicians and hospitals that they might need in the future but would not be able to afford.
• They would have the right to enroll in plans with high deductibles that have been proven to impair access and create greater personal financial hardships.
• They can rest assured that their employers will be insulated against future increases in health care costs, while graciously accepting for themselves the costs of unpredictable health care inflation.
• They can personally experience the ongoing deterioration in labor markets as employers decline to provide as wage increases the savings in the costs of their health benefit programs – a valuable lesson in the differences between market ideology and the actual application of market dynamics.
• They need not understand the value of their lost benefits (i.e., “increased compensation might only need to match employees’ perceptions of the value of the lost benefits” – the fools know not what they are deprived of).
• With greater transparency in premiums under defined contribution, employees would be in a position to demand only the lower premium plans that they could afford, even though that can be disastrous should health status change for the worse. (Employees choose low premium plans not because they want less coverage but rather because they cannot afford the higher premiums of more comprehensive plans.)
• Employees can be reassured by the fact that their “employers are intrigued by the potential of private exchanges to control cost increases, reduce administrative burdens and provide greater value” – for the employers that is. There is nothing like a work environment that takes good care of the employers.

Perhaps there is a limit to what the employee/patient/beneficiary/consumer may support in this transition to defined contribution financing of health care. According to these authors, “Defining the contributions to health care expenditures before containing health care costs might be placing the cart before the horse. On the other hand, making such inflation visible and painful to consumers is one tool for bringing costs under control.”

Ah ha! We need to switch to defined contribution financing because it will make health care inflation “visible and painful to consumers.” Clearly there had to be more advantages than just those listed above. There ain’t no gain if there ain’t no pain.

Regina Herzlinger is an icon in the consumer-directed policy community. They are winning the battle, and the people are losing. If you like the policies listed above, you don’t need to do anything. Regina and her friends will take care of it for you.

For the rest of you, get over the lousy satire and go out and fight the battle for health care justice for all.

Shifting toward Defined Contributions — Predicting the Effects

By Kevin A. Schulman, M.D., Barak D. Richman, J.D., Ph.D., and Regina E. Herzlinger, D.B.A.
The New England Journal of Medicine, June 26, 2014

When Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) attracted national attention by joining Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) in proposing a sweeping privatization of Medicare, he was variously vilified and praised for suggesting that Medicare should be converted from a defined-benefit program to a defined-contribution program. Although there has been little congressional action to advance the Wyden–Ryan plan, defined-contribution programs are becoming increasingly prevalent in employer-sponsored health insurance and may ultimately bring about substantial changes in U.S. health care.

A defined-benefit program provides specific benefits to enrollees when those benefits are needed. For example, a defined-benefit pension program provides payments of specified amounts to retirees. Defined-benefit health insurance, such as Medicare and most private plans, pays for specific health care services when eligible beneficiaries demand such services. In contrast, a defined-contribution program — like most typical 401(k) retirement plans — provides certain financial support to beneficiaries before any benefits are consumed, and beneficiaries then spend those funds to meet their eventual expenses. In defined-contribution pension plans, only the financial contribution is defined, and the extracted benefits are determined by the payment and investment preferences of the beneficiary.

Economists have posited that defined-contribution health insurance plans offer two key benefits. First, enrollees in such plans receive more choice than they would in the one-size-fits-all plans typically offered by employers. They can thus consider the quality of plans and express their preferences for various features of benefits packages, such as open or limited provider networks and low or high deductibles. Second, defined-contribution plans can give employers greater certainty about costs, insulating them from unpredictable health care inflation. Such plans might also curb or reverse the trend toward employees’ passively shouldering the growing costs of employer-based defined-benefits plans. (Between 2003 and 2013, employer spending increased by 77%, while employees’ costs increased by 89%.1) In a competitive labor market, with the transparency of a defined-contribution plan, employers would have to compensate employees through higher wages for any shifting of additional health care costs, although increased compensation might only need to match employees’ perceptions of the value of the lost benefits.

One largely overlooked attraction of defined-benefit plans is related to the political economy of firms. Because the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance often hides what employers pay for employees’ health insurance, many employees demand costly plans without realizing that the employer’s contribution ultimately reduces their own take-home pay. A defined-contribution plan, in contrast, makes insurance premiums more transparent, thereby inducing employees to demand more affordable health plans because they are aware of the full amount they pay. For example, when human resources consultancy Aon Hewitt helped companies implement insurance plans under a defined-contribution system in 2013, 42% of employees purchased less expensive plans, 32% purchased coverage similar to what they had previously had, and only 26% bought more expensive coverage.

The intellectual appeal of the Wyden–Ryan plan rested on this logic. Its supporters argued that because the risk of higher-than-expected health care inflation would be shifted onto Medicare enrollees, who would be empowered to exercise consumer choice, the market dynamics would change. On one hand, there would be greater cost consciousness behind consumer demand; on the other hand, supply would reflect greater competition for consumers’ premium dollars.

If Medicare reforms do not adequately address the excessive costs of health care, converting the program to a defined-contribution plan could leave many seniors uninsured or exposed to unaffordable health care bills, thereby undermining one of the fundamentals of the Medicare program — protection against financial risk — while leaving providers with major revenue shortfalls.

Although Medicare seems unlikely to be transformed into a defined-contribution program in the immediate future, the private insurance market is shifting toward defined contributions. Many large companies — including IBM, Duke Energy, and Time Warner — are now pursuing defined-contribution strategies for their retirees; others, including Walgreens, are doing so for current workers. Some companies have designed private insurance exchanges through which workers and retirees can purchase insurance plans, and others may encourage retirees to purchase insurance through private exchanges or the public exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act. A recent survey suggests that 58% of employers have confidence in private exchanges as a viable alternative to the plans they currently offer employees and that “employers are intrigued by the potential of private exchanges to control cost increases, reduce administrative burdens and provide greater value.”

Some observers have expressed legitimate concerns that employers could limit their payments for health benefits by increasing wages by amounts less than those of employees’ medical costs. In theory, a competitive labor market would ensure that total employee compensation remained at competitive levels, thereby preventing employers from using defined-contribution mechanisms in this way. But competitive labor markets require compensation to reflect productivity. In rigid sectors of the economy, defined-contribution strategies could burden employees disproportionately with the weight of medical inflation.

Yet the appeal of defined-contribution plans — whether as part of Medicare reform or in the form of changing benefits for retirees and workers — remains potent. Defined-contribution strategies reveal to employees and health insurance customers any cost increases that exceed the growth of wages, and individuals purchasing insurance on exchanges have shown a growing preference for lower-priced plans that increase cost sharing for health expenditures. In 2013, for example, Aon Hewitt found that the proportion of employees who selected high-deductible plans (most of which included a contribution to a health savings account) increased from 12% to 39%, while enrollment in preferred provider organizations decreased from 70% to 47%.

Defining the contributions to health care expenditures before containing health care costs might be placing the cart before the horse. On the other hand, making such inflation visible and painful to consumers is one tool for bringing costs under control.

Whether or not providers and consumers are ready, defined-contribution benefit plans are growing in popularity. They will unquestionably have both short- and long-term consequences for providers. They will bring greater transparency to health care costs and health care inflation, and they will probably give insurance purchasers greater motivation to attend to insurance prices, stimulating the provision of lower-cost insurance.

Because insurance premiums are ultimately the primary source of revenue for providers, cost consciousness among consumers will impose new fiscal constraints on providers. For some highly leveraged providers — especially those who expanded costly infrastructures that relied on lucrative fee-for-service revenue models — even small changes in the private health insurance market could have substantial financial effects. In this world, providers’ future success will depend on their ability to sustain themselves on a flattening allowance.

Over the long term, greater consumer sensitivity to insurance premiums will affect all providers. It is a truism that the growth of health care costs — or, phrased differently, the growth of provider resources — will be bounded by the growth of health care revenue. A dramatic shift in the revenue available to providers will impose strong cost pressure. And such pressure, in turn, can be seen as a new opportunity for developing more cost-efficient delivery mechanisms.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1314391

This article from the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine should alarm anyone who cares about ensuring that everyone has access to health care. We are now seeing a rapid conversion of health care financing from defined benefit (paying for appropriate health care) to defined contribution (paying a specific dollar amount while placing upon the beneficiary the responsibility of using those funds to find affordable care, if possible). This places the burden of health care inflation most heavily on those who have the greatest health care needs when these individuals and families are already over-burdened with our deficient system of health care financing.

Look at the explanation that these authors give as to why defined contribution is a superior method of financing health care:

• Patients would not be stuck with a one-size-fits-all plan of comprehensive benefits that covers their essential care but rather would be allowed to forgo crucial health care services that they could not afford (permitting them to accept suffering, disability and even death as a small price to pay for not selecting a plan that they couldn’t afford).
• They would have the right to plans that exclude from provider networks physicians and hospitals that they might need in the future but would not be able to afford.
• They would have the right to enroll in plans with high deductibles that have been proven to impair access and create greater personal financial hardships.
• They can rest assured that their employers will be insulated against future increases in health care costs, while graciously accepting for themselves the costs of unpredictable health care inflation.
• They can personally experience the ongoing deterioration in labor markets as employers decline to provide as wage increases the savings in the costs of their health benefit programs – a valuable lesson in the differences between market ideology and the actual application of market dynamics.
• They need not understand the value of their lost benefits (i.e., “increased compensation might only need to match employees’ perceptions of the value of the lost benefits” – the fools know not what they are deprived of).
• With greater transparency in premiums under defined contribution, employees would be in a position to demand only the lower premium plans that they could afford, even though that can be disastrous should health status change for the worse. (Employees choose low premium plans not because they want less coverage but rather because they cannot afford the higher premiums of more comprehensive plans.)
• Employees can be reassured by the fact that their “employers are intrigued by the potential of private exchanges to control cost increases, reduce administrative burdens and provide greater value” – for the employers that is. There is nothing like a work environment that takes good care of the employers.

Perhaps there is a limit to what the employee/patient/beneficiary/consumer may support in this transition to defined contribution financing of health care. According to these authors, “Defining the contributions to health care expenditures before containing health care costs might be placing the cart before the horse. On the other hand, making such inflation visible and painful to consumers is one tool for bringing costs under control.”

Ah ha! We need to switch to defined contribution financing because it will make health care inflation “visible and painful to consumers.” Clearly there had to be more advantages than just those listed above. There ain’t no gain if there ain’t no pain.

Regina Herzlinger is an icon in the consumer-directed policy community. They are winning the battle, and the people are losing. If you like the policies listed above, you don’t need to do anything. Regina and her friends will take care of it for you.

For the rest of you, get over the lousy satire and go out and fight the battle for health care justice for all.

Medical Cost Trend: Behind the Numbers 2015

PricewaterhouseCoopers
PwC Health Research Institute, June 2014

PwC’s Health Research Institute (HRI) projects 2015’s medical cost trend to be 6.8% — a modest increase over our 2014 projection of 6.5%. This projection is based on HRI’s analysis of medical costs in the large employer insurance market, which covers about 150 million Americans. By comparison, Medicare serves 52 million beneficiaries and a little over 8 million Americans enrolled in the public exchanges this year.

The net growth rate in 2015, after accounting for benefit design changes such as higher deductibles and narrow provider networks, is expected to be 4.8%. Benefit design changes typically hold down spending growth by shifting costs to consumers, who often choose less expensive healthcare options.

Although total US health spending will likely increase as more people gain insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it may have little effect on employer health spending. The increase in utilization under the ACA will likely drive up total national health expenditures without changing prices for those with employer coverage.

High-deductible plans will continue to tamp down use of services

The popularity of high-deductible health plans continues to rise as employers attempt to manage their benefit costs. According to PwC’s 2014 Touchstone Survey, 44% of employers across all industries are considering high-deductible plans as the only insurance option for their employees during the next three years. In addition, according to the same survey, 33% of employers are considering moving their active employees to a private exchange in the next three years, and this strategy tends to accelerate employee adoption of higher deductible plans.

Now more than ever, consumers are experiencing increased financial responsibility and are evaluating and rethinking how and when to spend. 

Consumers become cost-conscious healthcare shoppers

The ongoing growth in high-deductible plans ultimately influences consumer behavior on the number and type of health services purchased. Eighty-five percent of employers in PwC’s 2014 Touchstone Survey have already implemented or are considering an increase in employee cost-sharing through plan design changes over the next three years, and 44% of employers are considering offering high-deductible plans as the only insurance option for their employees over the next three years.

While increased cost sharing and high-deductibles do not affect medical inflation directly, consumer behavior does. Cost remains a top concern for consumers and affects the health choices they make. According to a December 2013 HRI survey, 40% of consumers said that healthcare expenses put a strain on their budget. And a recent study in the journal Health Affairs about families with high-deductible health plans observed deliberate changes in those families’ use of health services. Families enrolled in high-deductible plans used fewer brand name drugs, had fewer doctor visits, and spent less per visit.

Risk-based contracts are beginning to reduce costs

Insurers and employers are increasingly using risk-based payments in their physician and hospital contracts to reduce costs. Risk-based contracts can include quality bonuses and penalties, shared savings programs that encourage physicians to cut costs, and patient-centered medical homes (PCMH), which pay physicians to manage and coordinate care. Most health plan actuaries interviewed by HRI reported that these strategies are starting to reap cost savings.

Employers: What are they doing now?

Employers continue to pursue a range of cost-cutting strategies with a fresh emphasis on shifting more responsibility onto workers. According to PwC’s 2014 Touchstone survey, 26% of employers have a high-deductible health plan as their highest enrolled medical plan in 2014—the highest percentage ever. Controlling costs through high-deductible plans is not the only strategy employers are trying. Offering plans with narrow provider networks, investing in wellness programs, contracting directly with centers of excellence, or even participating in private exchanges, may save employers money. Consumer behavior is also beginning to impact the spending growth rate.

http://pwchealth.com/cgi-local/hregister.cgi/reg/pwc-hri-medical-cost-trend-2015.pdf

****

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

This PwC medical cost trend applies to the large employer health insurance market, covering about 150 million Americans. The increase in costs for 2015 is anticipated to be 6.8%, again well in excess of the rate of inflation. Perhaps most alarming is the estimate of net growth – 4.8% – a reduction accomplished by “benefit design changes such as higher deductibles and narrow provider networks.”

We have discussed repeatedly the perversities of higher deductibles and narrower provider networks – reducing spending by impairing access and making health care less affordable for patients in need – yet that is the direction where the mainstay of health care coverage – employer-sponsored plans – is headed.

We need to remove employers and private insurers from the health care equation. A single payer national health program would eliminate the need for deductibles and would provide unlimited choice of health care professionals and institutions, while actually controlling health care spending. Its time is now.

Medical Cost Trend: Behind the Numbers 2015

PricewaterhouseCoopers
PwC Health Research Institute, June 2014

PwC’s Health Research Institute (HRI) projects 2015’s medical cost trend to be 6.8% — a modest increase over our 2014 projection of 6.5%. This projection is based on HRI’s analysis of medical costs in the large employer insurance market, which covers about 150 million Americans. By comparison, Medicare serves 52 million beneficiaries and a little over 8 million Americans enrolled in the public exchanges this year.

The net growth rate in 2015, after accounting for benefit design changes such as higher deductibles and narrow provider networks, is expected to be 4.8%. Benefit design changes typically hold down spending growth by shifting costs to consumers, who often choose less expensive healthcare options.

Although total US health spending will likely increase as more people gain insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it may have little effect on employer health spending. The increase in utilization under the ACA will likely drive up total national health expenditures without changing prices for those with employer coverage.

High-deductible plans will continue to tamp down use of services

The popularity of high-deductible health plans continues to rise as employers attempt to manage their benefit costs. According to PwC’s 2014 Touchstone Survey, 44% of employers across all industries are considering high-deductible plans as the only insurance option for their employees during the next three years. In addition, according to the same survey, 33% of employers are considering moving their active employees to a private exchange in the next three years, and this strategy tends to accelerate employee adoption of higher deductible plans.

Now more than ever, consumers are experiencing increased financial responsibility and are evaluating and rethinking how and when to spend.

Consumers become cost-conscious healthcare shoppers

The ongoing growth in high-deductible plans ultimately influences consumer behavior on the number and type of health services purchased. Eighty-five percent of employers in PwC’s 2014 Touchstone Survey have already implemented or are considering an increase in employee cost-sharing through plan design changes over the next three years, and 44% of employers are considering offering high-deductible plans as the only insurance option for their employees over the next three years.

While increased cost sharing and high-deductibles do not affect medical inflation directly, consumer behavior does. Cost remains a top concern for consumers and affects the health choices they make. According to a December 2013 HRI survey, 40% of consumers said that healthcare expenses put a strain on their budget. And a recent study in the journal Health Affairs about families with high-deductible health plans observed deliberate changes in those families’ use of health services. Families enrolled in high-deductible plans used fewer brand name drugs, had fewer doctor visits, and spent less per visit.

Risk-based contracts are beginning to reduce costs

Insurers and employers are increasingly using risk-based payments in their physician and hospital contracts to reduce costs. Risk-based contracts can include quality bonuses and penalties, shared savings programs that encourage physicians to cut costs, and patient-centered medical homes (PCMH), which pay physicians to manage and coordinate care. Most health plan actuaries interviewed by HRI reported that these strategies are starting to reap cost savings.

Employers: What are they doing now?

Employers continue to pursue a range of cost-cutting strategies with a fresh emphasis on shifting more responsibility onto workers. According to PwC’s 2014 Touchstone survey, 26% of employers have a high-deductible health plan as their highest enrolled medical plan in 2014—the highest percentage ever. Controlling costs through high-deductible plans is not the only strategy employers are trying. Offering plans with narrow provider networks, investing in wellness programs, contracting directly with centers of excellence, or even participating in private exchanges, may save employers money. Consumer behavior is also beginning to impact the spending growth rate.

http://pwchealth.com/cgi-local/hregister.cgi/reg/pwc-hri-medical-cost-tr…

This PwC medical cost trend applies to the large employer health insurance market, covering about 150 million Americans. The increase in costs for 2015 is anticipated to be 6.8%, again well in excess of the rate of inflation. Perhaps most alarming is the estimate of net growth – 4.8% – a reduction accomplished by “benefit design changes such as higher deductibles and narrow provider networks.”

We have discussed repeatedly the perversities of higher deductibles and narrower provider networks – reducing spending by impairing access and making health care less affordable for patients in need – yet that is the direction where the mainstay of health care coverage – employer-sponsored plans – is headed.

We need to remove employers and private insurers from the health care equation. A single payer national health program would eliminate the need for deductibles and would provide unlimited choice of health care professionals and institutions, while actually controlling health care spending. Its time is now.

Marital Disruption and Health Insurance

By H. Elizabeth Peters, Kosali Simon, and Jamie Rubenstein Taber
National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 20233, June 2014

Despite the high levels of marital disruption in the United States, and substantial reliance on family-based health insurance, little research is available on the consequences of marital disruption for insurance coverage among men, women, and children. We address this shortfall by examining patterns of coverage surrounding marital disruption. We find large differences in coverage across marital status groups in the cross-section. In longitudinal analyses that focus on within-person change, we find small overall coverage changes but large changes in type of coverage following marital disruption. Both men and women show increases in private coverage in their own names, but offsetting decreases in dependent coverage tend to be larger. Dependent coverage for children also declines after marital dissolution, even though children are still likely to be eligible for that coverage. Children and, to a lesser extent, women show increases in public coverage around the time of divorce or separation. The most vulnerable group appears to be lower-educated women with children because the increases in private, own-name, and public insurance are not large enough to offset the large decrease in dependent coverage.

New provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will increase availability of health insurance, especially through Medicaid expansions and subsidized exchange-based private coverage, and may mitigate some of the detrimental impacts of marital disruption. However, because employers are expected to remain the main source of coverage for the nonelderly population (Congressional Budget Office 2012) and because of lingering uncertainty regarding state compliance with expansions (Kaiser Family Foundation 2013), marital disruption is likely to remain a cause of instability in insurance coverage. 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20233

****

Comment:

By Don McCanne, MD

To no surprise, this study confirms that divorce is disruptive to health insurance coverage, especially for spouses and dependent children. That disruption is worse for more vulnerable lower-educated women with children. Since employer-sponsored coverage is expected to remain the most dominant form of insurance and most susceptible to changes due to divorce, and since many states are avoiding compliance with the intentions of improving coverage through the expansions authorized in the Affordable Care Act, and since many divorced individuals and their dependents will qualify for hardship exemptions allowing them to remain uninsured, marital disruption will remain a significant cause of being uninsured.

We are now inundated with reports about how well the Affordable Care Act is working – the glass half-full argument. What about those who will be left out because their share is in the empty half of the glass? We need a full glass – a single payer national health program – but we didn’t get it. Many divorcees and their children will be victims of our mediocre, half-assed effort (excuse me, half-glass). Well, it was half-assed and it’s time we said it.

Marital Disruption and Health Insurance

By H. Elizabeth Peters, Kosali Simon, and Jamie Rubenstein Taber
National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 20233, June 2014

Despite the high levels of marital disruption in the United States, and substantial reliance on family-based health insurance, little research is available on the consequences of marital disruption for insurance coverage among men, women, and children. We address this shortfall by examining patterns of coverage surrounding marital disruption. We find large differences in coverage across marital status groups in the cross-section. In longitudinal analyses that focus on within-person change, we find small overall coverage changes but large changes in type of coverage following marital disruption. Both men and women show increases in private coverage in their own names, but offsetting decreases in dependent coverage tend to be larger. Dependent coverage for children also declines after marital dissolution, even though children are still likely to be eligible for that coverage. Children and, to a lesser extent, women show increases in public coverage around the time of divorce or separation. The most vulnerable group appears to be lower-educated women with children because the increases in private, own-name, and public insurance are not large enough to offset the large decrease in dependent coverage.

New provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will increase availability of health insurance, especially through Medicaid expansions and subsidized exchange-based private coverage, and may mitigate some of the detrimental impacts of marital disruption. However, because employers are expected to remain the main source of coverage for the nonelderly population (Congressional Budget Office 2012) and because of lingering uncertainty regarding state compliance with expansions (Kaiser Family Foundation 2013), marital disruption is likely to remain a cause of instability in insurance coverage.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w20233

To no surprise, this study confirms that divorce is disruptive to health insurance coverage, especially for spouses and dependent children. That disruption is worse for more vulnerable lower-educated women with children. Since employer-sponsored coverage is expected to remain the most dominant form of insurance and most susceptible to changes due to divorce, and since many states are avoiding compliance with the intentions of improving coverage through the expansions authorized in the Affordable Care Act, and since many divorced individuals and their dependents will qualify for hardship exemptions allowing them to remain uninsured, marital disruption will remain a significant cause of being uninsured.

We are now inundated with reports about how well the Affordable Care Act is working – the glass half-full argument. What about those who will be left out because their share is in the empty half of the glass? We need a full glass – a single payer national health program – but we didn’t get it. Many divorcees and their children will be victims of our mediocre, half-assed effort (excuse me, half-glass). Well, it was half-assed and it’s time we said it.