As many as 37 million Americans
who receive health coverage through employers may be better off
with the government-subsidized insurance plans that will be
offered under President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law for
next year, according to a study released on Monday.
The analysis, compiled by researchers at Stanford School of
Medicine and published in the journal Health Affairs, suggests
that some employees may choose to dump the coverage they receive
at work. It also points to a potential counter-trend to surveys
of employers, which show that up to 30 percent would consider
terminating health coverage for their workers within the first
few years of "Obamacare."
"There is definitely going to be some pressure in that
direction," said Thomas Buchmueller, a professor of insurance at
the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, who was
not involved in the study.
"Workers could say, 'we appreciate that you offered us
coverage all these years, but we'll be better off on the
exchanges, so give us the cash and we'll go.'"
That scenario, which would cost the federal treasury
billions of dollars above what it has already projected,
reflects the complicated financial carrots and sticks at the
heart of Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA).
On the one hand, it requires large employers with 50 or more
workers to offer health insurance or pay a $2,000-to-$3,000
annual penalty per full-time worker. About 170 million Americans
have health insurance through their own job or through a family
member's; such coverage is available to 80 percent of full-time
workers.
On the other, the law allows workers to buy coverage on new
state-based exchanges and receive federal subsidies to help pay
the premiums and deductibles, if their employer-sponsored
insurance is deemed unaffordable according to a government
calculation.
Roughly "37 million people would be financially better off
switching to the exchange" from employer-sponsored insurance,
said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford School of Medicine, who
led the study.
"The reason is that these workers would qualify for
substantial subsidies to buy exchange insurance," he said. As a
result, the subsidized Obamacare premium will be less than what
they pay for employer-based insurance. The cost to the federal
treasury if all 37 million switch: $132 billion a year in
subsidies, according to the study.
If premiums for employer-based coverage rise by even $100 a
year, another 2.25 million people would be better off,
Bhattacharya and his colleagues calculate. That would increase
federal outlays another $6.7 billion.
"Pure economic benefit for workers may or may not be a good
enough reason for employers to drop coverage," Bhattacharya
said, since employers will pay a penalty starting in 2015 for
not providing insurance. "Our point is that total federal
government obligations are incredibly sensitive to the decisions
made by employers."
Policy makers, the Stanford team concludes, "should plan for
the possibility that the exchange subsidies may end up costing
the federal government much more than currently projected."
The Stanford team did not receive outside funding for their
study.
For now, the vast majority of employers, especially large
ones, say they are not dropping health benefits. A second study
in Health Affairs concludes that the net increase or decrease in
the number of workers with employer-sponsored health insurance
will be only a percent or two.
That jibes with a survey released last month by the
National Business Group on Health, which represents large
employers. It found that 1 percent were considering moving
current employees to exchanges in 2014, and 30 percent might do
so after that.
"Large employers are pretty certain they won't be out of the
business of offering health insurance for active employees any
time soon," said NBGH president Helen Darling. "It's still going
to be a competitive benefit" in attracting employees.
Obamacare is already being cited as the cause for major
shifts in how employers are providing health benefits, including
a decision by United Parcel Service to drop coverage to
spouses of non-union employees who have access to insurance
through their own jobs.
"Some employers will drop coverage, and more often than not
when they say it's the result of the ACA, it's probably not,"
said Michigan's Buchmueller, who led the study projecting
employer behavior. "Firms have made adjustments to benefits for
years and years, but this is the first time there has been a
single target to blame it on."
source
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The study is interesting, while trying to appear unbiased. I am not sure that an Associate Professor of Health Policy – even with the backing of Stanford has the insurance, economic and research credentials to pull off an accurate forecast. The study shows several flaws in its assumptions - PPACA does not allow employees to jump ship when offered affordable coverage, employers dumping coverage for PT employees are not the common business model (though they contribute to higher healthcare costs due to substandard wages), and current insurance consultant reports (most consultants do not like PPACA) show 90% employers keeping current insurance. So the assumption about the number of people going to the exchange is overblown, and due tom lower than expected premiums in the exchanges, subsides are looking much lower than expected.
I pay for my coverage through my employer and am looking forward to pricing coverage on the exchange. I think I could save between $100 to $200 a month - not even considering any possible subsidy - but I won't know until October 1st. I am so excited about the possibility of having options to choose from.
Post a Comment