The past year’s health care discussion has been remarkable for the narrow range of ideas and opinions that have floated down to the man on the street. Journalists have sought out the same organizations and sources for their stories, offering up what has become the conventional wisdom for reform. To bring more voices into the conversation, our series, Excluded Voices, will intermittently feature health care experts who aren’t on the media’s A-list of sources. (The entire series is archived here.) We want to offer journalists more options for their stories and encourage a deeper discussion. To that end, we’ve asked the experts featured in each post to respond to questions from Campaign Desk readers.
The Washington Post recently ran an utterly predictable and formulaic story about consumer driven health plans—those newfangled options that come with tax-advantaged savings accounts, and are, some would say, the future of American health insurance. Basically, policyholders shoulder more of their health care costs, relieving insurance companies from as much of the claims burden as possible. After getting beyond the requisite anecdotal lead, about a woman who is facing “steep increases in out-of-pocket expenses for health coverage this year,” we learn that employers are planning to shove more costs onto their workers. The consulting firm, Mercer, surveyed almost 2,000 large employers and found that 44 percent planned to make workers pay a higher portion of their health insurance premiums this year, up from 40 percent in 2008. Higher premiums often lead workers to clamor for lower deductibles. So there’s a need to understand just how these high deductible offerings work. To that end, Campaign Desk talked to comsumer-driven health plan expert Timothy Jost, law professor at Washington and Lee University and author of Health Care at Risk: A Critique of the Consumer-Driven Movement, published in 2007.
Trudy Lieberman: What do we mean by consumer-driven health plans?
Timothy Jost: It’s an imprecise term that means different things to different people. But at its core, it means an arrangement that transfers to consumers much of the responsibility for buying their own health care, just as they would buy cars or computers.
TL: How do the kinds of consumer-driven policies differ?
TJ: Health savings accounts, or HSAs, are savings accounts to which consumers or their employers can make tax-advantaged contributions. HSAs must be coupled with a high deductible insurance policy; in other words, a plan that covers catastrophic expenses. Consumers can use the money in the account to pay for medical bills they incur before they meet their deductible. Health reimbursement accounts, or HRAs, also come with a savings account, but only employers can make contributions. HRAs are usually linked to a high deductible policy, but they don’t have to be.
Balances in the HSA and HRA savings accounts can be rolled over from year to year. If you have an HSA and leave the job, you can take your money with you. If you have an HRA, the money usually stays with the employer.
TL: Are employers putting money into HSAs?
TJ: A lot of employers are providing high deductible policies. Some are contributing to the HSAs, and some are not. A study by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association found that only 38 percent of consumers with HSAs received contributions from their employers in 2008, down from 45 percent in 2007. Other research shows that millions of Americans have high deductible plans, but no health savings accounts to help them pay for care while they are meeting the deductible.
TL: How high do these deductibles go?
TJ: The latest report from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Education Trust found that the average family deductible for HSAs offered by employers was almost $4000. Deductibles for policies with an HRA can be much higher, and sometimes are. But under the law, deductibles for tax-subsidized HSAs can not exceed the maximum amount a person has to pay out-of-pocket, which is $5,800 for individuals and $11,600 for families.
TL: What’s the rationale behind these high deductibles?
Explain exactly how going against the progressive majority's choice - Conyers HR-676 bill, by in the name of pragmatism embracing all the convoluted BS alternatives that you just explained, is going to achieve success?
It appears that you are sabotaging your own cause by accepting defeat out of the gate.
Re:
http://blip.tv/play/gdEl6vJSjJYL?autostart=1
#1 Posted by HR-676, CJR on Mon 9 Feb 2009 at 06:57 PM
What does this have to do with journalism? Why is CJR advocating for a particular health care policy?
#2 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Tue 10 Feb 2009 at 12:24 AM
In the best of all possible worlds, I too would prefer a single-payer system. What is most important to me, however, is to expand health care coverage as soon as possible to as many people as possible. How many senators currently support HR-676 and what is your strategy for increasing that number to 60 in the immediate future? If we have learned anything from the past few days, when virtually all progressive ideas on health care were stripped out of the stimulus bill, it is that anything that is going to happen will have to happen with the support of conservative Democrats, moderate Republican, and most health care industry lobbyists. I think the public plan has at least a ghost of a chance, and is a start we can build on.
Tim
#3 Posted by Tim Jost, CJR on Tue 10 Feb 2009 at 07:58 AM
In her book, "Overtreated, Why American Healthcare..." by Shannon Brownlee she contends that 30% of the premium dollar is wasted through either ineffective or poor medicine. There are other studies that also indicate that there is waste in our medical system of healthcare. If these contentions are factual then healthcare plans have to justify to subscribers why they should waste 25-30% of their HSA dollars on poor or ineffective medicine. A subscriber is in no position to tell what is good medicine. By shifting the cost to the subscriber it may lessen the cost to the employer but it will not doing anything about inefficient medicine. The healthcare plans and providers must do more in providing efficient and effective medicine
#4 Posted by Jay, CJR on Tue 10 Feb 2009 at 03:43 PM
Tom T, in what way is interviewing an expert the same as advocating for a particular health care policy?
#5 Posted by Murphy, CJR on Wed 11 Feb 2009 at 12:47 PM
Tom T.: RE: what does this have to do with journalism—We explain this in the intro to each piece in our "Excluded Volces" series:
"...Journalists have sought out the same organizations and sources for their stories, offering up what has become the conventional wisdom for reform. To bring more voices into the conversation, our series, Excluded Voices, will intermittently feature health care experts who aren’t on the media’s A-list of sources. We want to offer journalists more options for their stories and encourage a deeper discussion...."
#6 Posted by Mike Hoyt, CJR on Wed 11 Feb 2009 at 01:07 PM
We also want to help journalists understand some of the complex topics they will be writing about such as consumer-driven health plans.
#7 Posted by Trudy Lieberman, CJR on Wed 11 Feb 2009 at 02:43 PM