Live data from Hacker News

Employer health plans are getting pricier and skimpier

axios.com

121–130 of 539 posts

Re: Employer health plans are getting pricier and skimpier

#121
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two coding systems (ICD - for diseases, and CPT for procedures) that are mandated to use by medicare/medicaid and all the insurance companies use them as well. Most of them even accept the same forms. They need those billing assistants for other reasons.

”They need those billing assistants for other reasons.” Whatever it is they do exactly it deals with insurance companies. Germany also has private doctors but they have much smaller staff and dealings with insurance are very straightforward. American insurance companies cause a lot of friction. I don’t know exactly why but they do.

Insurance companies are mainly trying to combat fraud. They kick back claims if they are formatted wrong (why did you code an operation on the left knee when the right knee was the problem), or they deem that the work done was improper, unnecessary or does not fit the standard of care. Billing staff also handle accounts receivable and collections.

The biggest problem IMO is how we structure payment for health services in the USA. The fee for service model is highly inefficient and disincentivizes preventative care. All of the current proposals for universal healthcare do not address this fundamental problem, and so long as this remains in place we will continue to have the highest costs in the world. (disclosure, I am working to try and solve this problem)

If you were to pick countries to emulate, I would pick Singapore, Japan, the Netherlands, and Switzerland instead of Canada and the U.K.

Re: Employer health plans are getting pricier and skimpier

#122
post #49

I think another thing about employer-based healthcare that few think about is that if you work for a large company then it is almost certainly self-insured, meaning that you or your employer is paying premiums into a fund that it is managing itself. How crazy is it to think that not only does Apple or Ford or Trader Joe's need to manage it's own business but that it is also hiring actuaries/insurance specialists/cons…

> I'm not sure many people that work at large companies realize that their employer knows every diagnosis, procedure, and prescription you've ever picked up, and actively trying to incentivize you to use as little healthcare as possible. I work for such a company, and it's great. I pay about $30 per month for a plan with a tiny deductible ($2,500), and they offer great wellness perks like weekly classes (yoga, kick-b…

> tiny deductible ($2,500)

That's quite a large deductible.

Re: Employer health plans are getting pricier and skimpier

#123

The sooner we can completely divorce healthcare from employment, the better.

I hear this statement all the time...but what does it mean? If employers didn't provide health insurance to employees wouldn't we just wind up with 40% of the insured uninsured? Its not like Corporate America is going to make up the difference and start paying cash to compensate for the lost benefit, at least thats what happened as pensions got stripped away from the workplace. Even if the employer's did make up the…

It's not mutually exclusive with a Universal Healthcare plan, for one thing. But I think it's still a worthwhile goal with or without a separate initiative for universal healthcare.

It brings costs down, because many more people are now on a level playing field. If we stick with the current market-based system, this would make a big difference in actually having it start to function like a market. The average, middle class American will actually have to evaluate the costs of their plan and shop around for the best value, and they will also be very aware of how much they're spending and push for measures to bring down costs. If we do also build up a universal healthcare system, then working, middle class people will end up actually using the universal healthcare system, and again will be incentivized to push to make it work well.

As things stand today, people on the "open market" plans are clearly being treated as second class citizens, they're paying more and getting worse coverage than people who have a special connection (whether that's a company plan, union, etc). The taxing is also wonky and unfair, at least if I understand this correctly if I pay for a marketplace plan I'm paying with after-tax money, but if my company pays for my plan it's untaxed.

In my opinion there are also additional reasons this would be a net good thing, even if it were merely neutral on the two criteria that you call out. It will give people more freedom to do what they want to do -- right now if you want to quit a job or work only part-time, even if you have a source of income or savings to make it feasible, healthcare is a major hurdle. If you want to start a small business and need to offer healthcare for your employees, it's an even bigger hurdle. I would rather live in a world where it's as easy as possible to make your own path, and people are not beholden to a full-time job to have access to healthcare.

Re: Employer health plans are getting pricier and skimpier

#124
post #49

I think another thing about employer-based healthcare that few think about is that if you work for a large company then it is almost certainly self-insured, meaning that you or your employer is paying premiums into a fund that it is managing itself. How crazy is it to think that not only does Apple or Ford or Trader Joe's need to manage it's own business but that it is also hiring actuaries/insurance specialists/cons…

> also hiring actuaries/insurance specialists/consultants

What usually happens is that they pay a health insurer to "administer" the plan, or a "Third Party Administrator", which gains them access to all the actuarial stuff, as well as the provider discounts and negotiations, for a service fee, meaning the only effective difference is that your employer doesn't have its funds in a "pool" but can instead choose how much, or little to pay, from its own funding.

Re: Employer health plans are getting pricier and skimpier

#125
Sharing this idea in order to gather critique. The cost of healthcare in the USA is insane. Could we look for insight into the US Military? Example: This morning, a coworker told me she's going to have an operation on her back. The "cost of the tray" (I have no idea what this is) is $14,000. She has to pay $8,000 up-front two days before the operation, and the remainder will be financed over two years.

To me, it's insane to think the US Military pays $14,000 for this same operation in US Veterans' hospitals. Why don't we look into the military to see how they're doing it?

Or am I completely off-base here? Thoughts?

Re: Employer health plans are getting pricier and skimpier

#128

This is why I feel the "most Americans like their health insurance" cliche is complete garbage.

The real issue generally speaking is people with union negotiated healthcare tend to really like their health insurance because in at least certain cases, they're getting Cadillac plans that give them a one up on seeing the best doctors around, in addition to in certain cases paying less in premiums than they would be taxed for M4A.

The second piece is that M4A is a huge unknown, and so they'd want to keep their health insurance because they're afraid that what the government will offer will ultimately be worse.

The first point is certainly easy to address as that money would then likely be renegotiated to result in salary increases, but with regards to the second, what would stop a republican administration from doing things like, effectively banning abortion by refusing to pay doctors who perform them through executive order.

Re: Employer health plans are getting pricier and skimpier

#129
post #10

Yep, and what people don't always realize is that because employer health plans get more expensive every year for employers, it negatively impacts wage growth. You are paying for it even if you don't necessarily feel it.

This is really important. Pulled from the underlying study[1], employers cover 82%/70% (individual/family) of the cost of healthcare. Those numbers are down just slightly from 86%/73% in 2019.

Or, put another way, employers have borne 69%/80% of the cost of healthcare increases. You complain because your individual plan has gone up by $986 in 20 years? Your employer's cost has gone up $4,005. Oh, and that's with cutting the underlying coverage ("skimpier").

It negatively impacts wage growth because that extra $4k is a bottom-line benefit (or cost of employment, if you want to think about it that way).

Finally, note the disparity between individual and family plans. Employers are offering 2.5x more benefit—nearly $9,000 more—to workers with families.

-----

[1] http://files.kff.org/attachment/Report-Employer-Health-Benef...

Fig. 1.10 shows premiums increasing from $2,196/$5,791 in 2019 to $7,188/$20,576. (Note also that 72% of that is attributed to premium increases vs. inflation and worker earnings, per Fig. 1.14.) Fig 6.1 shows % of premium paid by workers going from 14%/27% to 18%/30%.

Re: Employer health plans are getting pricier and skimpier

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting insurance as an individual is expensive because you’re not part of a group plan. With a group plan the insurance company has some reason to believe you’re not collectively a bunch of dying people committing moral hazard, you’re just one of a generally similar looking company workforce. If employers stopped providing it, I think it is presumed that the mentality towards individual plans would change

> Getting insurance as an individual is expensive because you’re not part of a group plan. I see people say this constantly. Insurance by definition is literally always a "group plan"—everyone who buys insurance is in the same group. That's literally the point of insurance. It's why it exists. That's what it is . That is fundamentally how insurance works . All insurance, in every category, of every type. There are no…

You see it constantly because it is true. A group plan is a thing. Yes you’re still in a “group” when you register as an individual, but it is an “individual plan” and semantics doesn’t really help you out.

The difference is that if I know the mean and variance of expected health costs for the group, I can offer a lower premium to every individual member because the variance of total actual cost goes down by n^(-1/2) and I don’t need to cover my butt as much. Especially since almost all group plans are centered around relatively healthy working age people. The privilege of group plans is you’re in a healthier subset.

Individual plans are for people not on those plans and they suck dickballs. There is a high chance of moral hazard. There’s more retired old people. You offer little value to the insurance company so you don’t get to negotiate like a group plan does.

Post reply on HN