January 28, 2020

Average Family Plan Cost Hits $20,000 for First Time; What Can You Do to Cut Costs?

A new study has found that the average annual premium for a group family health plan has exceeded $20,000 for the first time in 2019, up 5% from 2018.

The average premium for single coverage plans in 2019 is $7,188, up 4% from the year prior, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual report on employer coverage.

The costs of high-deductible health plans are only slightly less than the average. The average premiums for covered workers in HDHPs with an attached health savings account are $6,412 for single coverage and $18,980 for family coverage.

Increasingly, workers are picking up a larger portion of the health care and insurance tab. In 2019, they are paying $6,015 on average in premiums for family coverage, or about 29% of the total tab. Workers with individual coverage contribute 17.3% toward the total premium.

Additionally, the average deductible for single coverage is $1,655 in 2019, which is unchanged from the year prior, however, the deductible is often higher for workers in small firms ($2,271) compared to large businesses ($1,412).

The average annual deductible among covered workers with a deductible has increased 36% over the last five years and 100% over the last 10 years, according to the report.

Also, 66% of workers have coinsurance and 14% have a copayment for hospital admissions. The average coinsurance rate for a hospital admission is 20%, and the average copayment is $326 per hospital admission.

Another survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Los Angeles Times found that 40% of group health plan enrollees had difficulty affording health insurance or health care, or had problems paying medical bills.

And close to 50% said that they or a family member had skipped or postponed getting health care or prescriptions in the past year due to costs.

Easing the burden

There are steps you can take to ease the burden on both your company and your employees.

Consider plans with telemedicine – More and more employers (69% of firms with 50 or more workers) are offering health plans that cover the provision of health care services through telemedicine. Telemedicine can greatly reduce the cost of care in terms of price for medical visits, as well as the time involved for the employee to travel to the doctor. Telemedicine can include video chat and remote monitoring.

Utilizing retail health clinics – More health plans will pay for services rendered by retail clinics, like those located in pharmacies, supermarkets and retail stores. These clinics are often staffed by nurse practitioners or physician assistants and treat minor illnesses and provide preventative services. They can greatly reduce the cost of care for these kinds of visits outside normal hospital systems.

Plans with narrow networks – If a health plan can contract with fewer doctors and specialists, there is often less outlay for care. At this point, the jury is still out on exactly how much can be saved, but there are also drawbacks such as:

  • Disruption of provider relationships
  • Employee backlash
  • Reduced access or convenience for employees
  • Lack of specialists.

Tiered or high-performance networks – These networks typically group providers in the network based on the cost, quality and/or efficiency of the care they deliver and use financial incentives to encourage enrollees to use providers on the preferred tier.

January 22, 2020

Telemedicine Taking Off, Reducing Health Costs

One of the fastest growing parts of the health care system, and which touches significantly on group health plans, is telemedicine.

From 2016 to 2017, insurance claims for services rendered via telehealth ― as a percentage of all medical claim lines ― grew 53% nationally, faster than any other avenue of care, according to “FH Health Indicators,” a white paper published by the nonprofit FAIR Health.

Telehealth uses technology to provide remote care via video conferencing and other means and is proving to be more and more effective, especially for time-pressed individuals or people who live in rural areas where patients often have to travel great distances for care.

Elderly patients especially find it useful, since it eliminates the need for transportation.

But as telehealth gains traction, the focus is shifting away from the novelty of connected devices and new technology and more toward providing patients with top-notch care ― and giving providers, physicians and nurses alike the power to deliver it effectively. As it evolves, it is also a promising new trend in terms of reducing health care delivery costs.

Telehealth can reduce the cost of care by eliminating the physical barriers that prevent patients from managing their health. As more patients take advantage of digital services like remote patient monitoring, automatic appointment reminders, and remote physician consulting using live video and audio, patients can use these services to reduce the cost of care and improve their chances of early detection.

And that can reduce your overall group health plan costs, as well as out-of-pocket costs for your employees.

Tech firms are coming up with more efficient ways for patients to communicate with their doctors that save time and money, and reduce liability for doctors as well. For example, more and more health care practitioners are adopting an online patient portal as a direct link between the patient and the doctor.

Doctors, patients embrace online portals

The portal can easily be password-protected for each patient and streamline routine interactions from appointment-setting to refilling prescriptions ― and everything in between. 

For example, when it’s time to get a prescription refilled, the patient simply makes a request to his or her doctor, via the patient portal or even via a cell phone or tablet app that can be proprietary to the practice. The doctor checks the dosage and approves the request in a few clicks, and in seconds the information is sent directly to a pharmacy so the patient can pick up the prescription.

The patient doesn’t have to get the doctor on the phone or bug the staff for a moment with the doctor, and the doctor doesn’t have to do additional paperwork or get on the phone with the pharmacy to call in the prescription after already having spoken with the patient on a separate call. The result is tremendous time savings ― and ultimately, cost savings for both the doctor and patient.

Online portals also facilitate communication between doctors and patients between appointments. If a patient has a question or clarification that does not warrant an additional office visit, the doctor or staff can quickly respond in an instant, without playing phone tag, and without having to route calls to busy doctors who can’t always be on the phone.

Physicians can also leverage these portal technologies to send lab results and images directly to the patient using a secured and encrypted link, and to make clinical summaries easily available online. When the doctor adds new information to the file, such as a lab report, the portal system can be programmed to automatically send an e-mail alert to prompt the patient to log onto the portal.

For all the technology though, we still have a way to go in implementing it. According to a recent study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, 57% of respondents said they want to use their doctor’s website to review their medical records, but only 7% of those polled reported having made use of that technology to access their own information online.

A study from the Annals of Internal Medicine found that 77% to 87% of individuals who used their physician’s portal to open at least one note, and who completed a post-intervention survey, said that the process helped them be more in control of their health care.

January 14, 2020

Court Rules ACA Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision that the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the penalty was set to zero in 2017.

However, the fate of the entire law is still in play after the court remanded the question of whether that means the entire ACA should be declared void back down to the district court.

Proponents of abolishing the ACA say that its lack of a “severability provision” means that if any element of the ACA is found unconstitutional, the entire law must go. However, that would likely create chaos for the health insurance marketplace.

Two of the three judges on the court on December 18 upheld a lower court’s decision that the individual mandate is not constitutional because it cannot be construed as a tax.

The judges wrote: “The individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power. On the severability question, we remand to the district court to provide additional analysis of the provisions of the ACA as they currently exist.”

The decision prolongs the court process and ensures that the future of the landmark health care law remains uncertain.

There is much at stake in this case. If the entire law is thrown out by courts, it would reverberate through the health care industry, including insurance providers and hospitals, and put the coverage of millions of Americans at stake.

The decision would affect people who buy coverage in the individual market and those with coverage through Medicaid expansion, Medicare and from their employers.

The ruling that the individual mandate is unconstitutional will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the 20 Democratic states that are now defending the ACA in this court fight against republican states that filed the suit to abolish the law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

Some background

The ACA individual mandate provision ― or “individual shared responsibility” provision ― initially required many people to own what the government classifies as solid major medical coverage, or else pay a penalty. Congress passed a tax bill in 2017 that included a provision setting the penalty at zero.

ACA critics challenged the mandate through a case that reached the Supreme Court in 2012.

In a ruling on that case, the Supreme Court held that a federal law that blocks challenges to new taxes protected the individual mandate provision, because the penalty was a tax.

Critics of the provision say that, now the new tax law has set the individual mandate penalty at zero, the individual mandate is no longer a tax and can no longer benefit from the legal protection accorded to federal taxes.

The takeaway

Because of this ruling, the lower court will likely start hearings on whether the entire law should be thrown out based on the elimination of the penalties for not securing coverage.

The other part of the ruling, that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, is destined for appeal to the Supreme Court. It’s unlikely that it would be heard in 2020 and that the issue about the fate of the rest of the law will take years to wind its way through the courts.

January 9, 2020

New Rules Allow Employers to Reimburse for Health Premiums

Starting Jan. 1, 2020, employers can establish accounts for their employees to help them pay for individual health insurance policies they purchase, as well as for other health care expenses.

A new regulation expands on how health reimbursement accounts can be used. Currently, employers and their workers can contribute to these accounts, which can be used to reimburse workers for out-of-pocket medical expenses.

With these new Individual Coverage HRAs, employers can fund the account workers would use to pay for health insurance premiums for coverage that they secure on their own.

Up until this new regulation, such arrangements were prohibited by the Affordable Care Act under the threat of sizeable fines in excess of $36,000 per employee per year.

This rule is the result of legislation signed into law by President Obama in December 2016, which created the “qualified small employer health reimbursement arrangement (QSEHRA),” which would allow small employers to reimburse for individual insurance under strict guidelines.

The Trump administration was tasked with writing the regulations, which created the Individual Coverage HRA (ICHRA).

How it works

Under the new rule, if an employer is funding an ICHRA, the plan an employee chooses must be ACA-compliant, meaning it must include coverage for the 10 essential benefits with no lifetime or annual benefit maximums — and must adhere to the consumer protections built into the law.

Once the ICHRA is created, the employer will a set amount every month into the account on a pre-tax basis, which the employee can then use to buy or supplement their purchase of health insurance benefits in the individual market.

The law allows employers to set up as many as 11 different classes of employees for the purposes of distributing funds to ICHRAs. The employer can vary how much they give to each different group. For example, one class may get $600 a month per single employee with no dependents, while members of another class may receive $400 a month.

The allowable classes are:

Full-time employees — For the purposes of satisfying the employer mandate, that means a worker who averages 30 or more hours per week.

Part-time employees — Like the above, the employer can choose how to define what part-time is.

Seasonal employees — Workers hired for short-term positions, usually during particularly busy periods.

Temps who work for a staffing firm — These employees provide temporary services for the business, but are formally employed through a staffing firm.

Salaried employees — Staff who have a have a fixed annual salary and are not typically paid overtime.

Hourly employees — Staff who are paid on an hourly basis and can earn overtime.

Employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement — Employees who are members of a labor union that has a contract with the employer.

Employees in a waiting period — This class would include workers who were recently hired and are in their waiting period before they can receive health benefits (in many companies, this is 90 days).

Foreign employees who work abroad — These employees work outside of the U.S.

Employees in different locations, based on rating areas — These employees live outside the individual health insurance rating area of the business’s physical address.

A combination of two or more of the above — Businesses can also create additional classes by combining two or more of the above classes.

The rules for ICHRAs are as follows:

  • Any employee covered by the ICHRA must be enrolled in health insurance coverage purchased in the individual market, and must verify that they have such coverage (as mentioned above, that coverage must be ACA-compliant);
  • The employer may not offer the same class of workers both an ICHRA and a traditional group health plan;
  • The employer must offer the ICHRA on the same terms to all employees in a class;
  • Employees must be allowed to opt out of receiving an ICHRA;
  • Employers must provide detailed information to employees on how the ICHRA works;
  • Employers may not create a class of employees younger than 25, whom they might want to keep in their group plan because they’re healthier;
  • A class cannot have less than 10 employees in companies with fewer than 100 workers. For employers with 100 to 200 employees, the minimum class size is 10% of the workforce, while for employers with 200 or more staff, the minimum size is 20 employees;
  • While benefits must be distributed fairly to employees that fall within each class, each class can be broken down further by age and family size. That means employees with families can be offered a higher amount per month and rates can be scaled by age.