Search News


Browse Archives

News

Making Higher-Risk Health Plans Palatable

October 25, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

 

With health care costs rising, colleges are seeking creative strategies to encourage employees to consider switching to plans that feature lower monthly premiums and higher employee-paid deductibles.

“It changes behaviors,” says Susan A. Carkeek, vice president and chief human resources officer at the University of Virginia, which just boosted benefits and lowered employee contributions for what it calls the “low premium” option.

“People incur lower health expenses who are on the low plan than on the high plan,” says Carkeek – who adds that while one likely explanation could be that younger, healthier employees tend to choose the lower-premium option, a high-deductible plan also encourages employees to “be more mindful" in making choices about health care.

The costs of services aside, it's generally in the employers' interest to drive down the cost of premiums -- which they tend to cover the brunt of -- and transfer a greater proportion of costs to the employee in the form of deductibles (although, in Virginia's case, the university's contribution toward the premium doesn't vary based on whether employees opt for the low or high option). And the low-premium plans are unpalatable to many employees for a reason: Carkeek acknowledges that with the low-premium, high-deductible plan, employees assume a higher degree of risk. The option, she says, is not for everybody. An employee with a chronic condition, for instance, might understandably prefer to pay more in premiums and less in doctor's visits.

But, she thinks a lot of Virginia employees have never really analyzed the two alternatives, and how much they (and not just the institution) can personally save. And so, with an open enrollment period for benefits in 2008 set for November, the university has begun a campaign to encourage employees to assess whether the lower-premium option -- available since 2004 and now selected by only 6.5 percent of employees – might be right for them.

And, to make switching seem a bit more appealing, the university is offering some incentives.

Virginia offers two plans with the same network of providers, but different cost-sharing mechanisms. The high-premium plan includes a 10 percent coinsurance charge on most in-network procedures and has no deductible for in-network services, while the low plan has a 20 percent coinsurance charge and a $350 deductible for in-network care.

Virginia’s monthly contribution to both plans is identical at $305 for a single employee or $799 for a family, but the difference in the premium costs is made up in employee contributions.

To encourage more employees to consider the low-premium program, the university is widening the gap in what employees would pay for the two plans, cutting the employee contribution for the low-premium program for the upcoming year and raising the contribution for the high-premium option. For single employees, the differences are negligible: The monthly employee contribution for the low-premium program will fall from $13 to $12 for a single employee, and the cost of the high plan will increase from $37 to $38 in 2008.

But for a family, the gap may seem more significant: The monthly cost to the employee for the low-premium plan will fall from $129 to $116 in 2008, while the cost of the high plan will increase from $290 to $299.

In addition, the university is removing maximum coverage restrictions on preventative care – pledging to cover all immunizations and preventative services at 100 percent for both the high and low plans – and has imposed a $7,000 maximum family out-of-pocket charge for in-network expenses for individuals on the low-premium plan. While there currently is a $3,500 maximum, as Anne Broccoli, assistant director of benefits, explains, that maximum is per person, so a family of four, for instance, could potentially face a $14,000 liability.

“Both of those enhancements are to try to respond to the concerns that we’ve had expressed and make the plan more viable to more people. If we can provide employees a lower-cost option for their health insurance, then I think it’s the right thing for us to do. It’s not for everybody, but we think there are some employees who haven’t considered this in the past,” says Carkeek.

In addition to changes aimed at making the low-premium option more palatable, Virginia is also increasing the coinsurance cost for brand-name prescription drugs while keeping the cost for generics the same, and is covering smoking cessation medications and types of genetic testing for the first time.

The university saw its health care costs rise 10.25 percent from 2005 to 2006, to an $89 million total. “There have been double-digit increases for years now,” Carkeek says. “Those are huge numbers.… A 10 percent increase is $9 million and then $9 million the next year.”

“All of us are just looking for whatever creative solutions we might have,” Carkeek says -- without, she adds, cutting the university’s competitive advantage in recruiting top talent.

Nationally, the median rise in health care costs at colleges in 2005 was about 9 percent, according to a 2006 College and University Professional Association for Human Resources survey. Despite the increase, the survey also found that 11 percent of colleges had reduced health benefits during the year.

Given the squeeze, colleges nationwide are, like Virginia, implementing or studying lower-premium, higher-deductible plans -- already largely embraced in private industry -- while expanding coverage of preventative care, says Andy Brantley, the association's chief executive officer.

“Higher education employers want to provide great comprehensive benefits, but as the resources of the institution are squeezed, the amount that the institution chooses to dedicate to health care versus other things like salaries or retirement benefits" can likewise be squeezed, Brantley says. "It really is a dilemma for human resources professionals, to make that balance occur and still provide an overall excellent benefits package for employees,” says Brantley.

At Florida’s Rollins College -- part of a 10-college consortium called the Independent Colleges and Universities Benefits Association -- officials also gave employees incentives to participate in a higher-deductible plan launched in 2003. It’s now the plan of choice for 55 percent of Rollins’s employees and 46 percent of all employees across the consortium, says Maria Martinez, assistant vice president for human resources and risk management at Rollins.

Like at Virginia, officials had to find a way to mitigate the risk of the higher-deductible option, dubbed the “Risk and Reward” plan, to make it appealing to employees. The deductible for the Rollins program is nearly five times that of Virginia’s at $1,500, but Rollins has contributed to individual health reimbursement accounts (HRA) for its employees to help cover out-of-pocket expenses.

The college’s contribution to the accounts is highest for those on the highest-deductible, highest-risk plan -- Rollins offers two other lower-risk options -- and four years into the plan, the average Rollins employee has $3,000 banked in an HRA. The HRA, which rolls over from year to year, is fully funded by Rollins, with no employee contributions.

In addition to mitigating the risk associated with higher deductibles, Rollins also, like Virginia, focused on ensuring that all preventative care is covered at 100 percent, even for those on the higher-risk plan. “When we created these plans, we all talked about that if we’re going to put high deductibles in place, then we have to make sure that our employees take care of their preventative services,” Martinez says.

While the college’s health care costs are still rising in part because of some high-cost claims -- costs increased about 9 percent last year -- Martinez believes the concept will save Rollins money in the long run. “If it’s partly coming out of [employees'] pockets, they’re going to talk to their doctors: ‘Which hospital is less expensive to have a procedure done? Which procedure, which lab is less expensive?’ ”

“There’s more discussion going on about the cost of services.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Making Higher-Risk Health Plans Palatable

  • Capitalist Social Engineering
  • Posted by Ann Arc on October 25, 2007 at 6:55am EDT
  • According to the currently dominant faux-libertarian paradigm, social engineering is bad when it is proposed by economic social liberals -- interferes with markets, ya know -- but I geuss it gets a pass when it comes from the capitalists & corporations themselves. In any case, until there is universal health care, this is just rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks beneath the waves.

  • The nature of health care cost
  • Posted by feudi pandola on October 25, 2007 at 8:50am EDT
  • The real problem with the cost of health care lies within the human condition, and there's not much anyone here can do to change that. What we can do is bifurcate the healthcare system between catastrophic care, and maintenance care. Under this model, all citizens would be covered for life-threatening conditions while all other needs would be addressed by the current programs. This would truly permit consumer choice and keep costs down for about 70% of the care rendered within the healthcare system. At the same time, society would provide care for those facing life-threatening circumstances.

    Catastrophic healthcare is inflexible regarding price. People facing death will pay any price to stay alive...and that's the problem! A humane society would spread the cost of catastrophic care among all citizens. Programs such as the Medicare A,B, and D would be income-based with the wealthy elderly paying their fair share. The same would hold true for the various SCHIP programs for kids once you hit a certain family income level. What sense does it make to waste valuable tax dollars subsidizing the healthcare of people who might have incomes of $80,000 per year? Answer: It makes no sense and serves only to inflate costs and increase taxes.

  • Posted by K.T. on October 25, 2007 at 9:05am EDT
  • According to the currently dominant faux-libertarian paradigm, social engineering is bad when it is proposed by economic social liberals — interferes with markets, ya know — but I geuss it gets a pass when it comes from the capitalists & corporations themselves."

    Um... it's not really social engineering when consumers are provided a choice that best suits their needs... high premium or low premium. Now, if the institution was dictating employees into one or the other, than I imagine supporters of market-based healthcare would cry foul. But, how expanding choice violates the "faux-libertarian paradigm" is somewhat perplexing.

  • Choice
  • Posted by Ann Arc on October 25, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • A choice between two crappy alternatives isn't much of a choice, is it?

    In practice, these "choices" are often a step toward making the higher deductible plan mandatory.

  • Higher Risk Health Plan
  • Posted by Tiffin Educator , Professor at Tiffin University on October 25, 2007 at 12:10pm EDT
  • We had a 12,000.00 deductible, paid $150.00 per month and had 80/20 after the deductible. I ended up in intensive care due to an unexpected health problem. When it was all said and done, almost a year to the day, I was sued by the hospital for the deductible and unpaid health expenses. My home was going to be taken. Fortunately I had a banker friend that found a HUD loan and was able to refinance. Now, I am paying on a house I have paid for since 1979. I will be 85 when the last payment is due. The other item is that since I lost a fincnacial lawsuit, my credit is in the water closet spinning down the toilet. And for those of you out there that say medical bills will not hurt your FICO score, that is true, until it turns into a lost lawsuit.

    Clearly the writer of this article has never been put into the position of having to actually use a high risk health plan. It does not matter that it changes behaviors. I was as healthy as a horse, what happenend to me was a shock to everyone, especially my doctor.

    The universities should be defining the economics of a universal healthcare plan. I have an idea, instead of tax breaks for building new stadiums and giving mega-stupid salaries to jocks, lets have team owners pony up the money for healthcare. People can come, enjoy the games knowing that their ticket price is paying for a worthwhile social enterprise.

  • Better a crappy choice than no choice
  • Posted by Jack L on October 25, 2007 at 12:10pm EDT
  • Ann, how does this two ‘crappy choice’ option compare to your apparent preferred system of a government health care program administered from inside the beltway?

    Since I will not talk a bit about personal responsibility and accountability, let me first state that I am in favor of a safety net for the bottom economic rungs. However, people who work at universities are not on those bottom rungs.

    The only real solution is for people to start managing their health care options and costs better. I remember (why back when) that sick bay at the naval station I was at was always packed with sailors and that sailors went there for absolutely anything. One of the reasons they did not hesitate to go was that there was no cost at all to go – no expense either in dollars, in sick days or in vacation days. As I understand it, this problem, to a lesser degree is manifest in health systems around the world that are run by governments. Hence the need to limit operations or to restrict certain procedures to certain age groups.

    “Free” medical care does not provide much of an incentive to maintain a preventive medical program. After all, which is easier if you have high cholesterol: free Lipetur or actually changing my diet and my exercise pattern? One takes no effort on my part and the other is…. hard work.

    Somewhere and somehow people need to understand the cost of medical care. How many young (or older) people have little or no medical insurance yet have good cars or entertainment systems? Medical care is being viewed by many as an entitlement and that affordable medical care means something we can afford with our disposable income.

    Whether we stick with private health insurance or follow Ann’s wishes and trust our health to the folks who managed Social Security, Medicaid, Katrina, Iraq and well, the entire federal budget, we still need to get people engaged in their health. Any program that attempts to do so is a step in the right direction.

  • analogy?
  • Posted by Kurt on October 25, 2007 at 12:15pm EDT
  • As I remember flexible mortages would allow individuals to take control of their payments, give a wider of choice of instruments which would save them money, and help everyone in the end. Low cost options sound a lot like variable rate mortgages to me.

  • Health care--"who chooses? who loses?"
  • Posted by hms676KY , Graduate Student at University of Louisville on October 25, 2007 at 12:15pm EDT
  • I had lunch last week with a former colleague recuperating from surgery. Like many professor-employees offered a "choice" by her institution, she had selected a lower premium, high deductible plan. She is now faced with a bill in the $3000 range
    (so much for co-insurance).

    Research has shown that patients choose not to seek preventive treatment for themselves or their children when co-pays are high.
    The mantra of pro-market supporters of the insurance companies is "Choice above all--affordable health care for the few " That's supposed to be "the American way."

    Meanwhile, every other free market democracy in the industrialized world has opted for a single-payer system. Their economists have done the math, and they have decided to protect the health of their people rather than the profits of insurers. Need I remind readers that insurers are not providers of care--they are simply unnecessary financial middlemen. Why do US employers and employees alike continue to pass them our hard=earned dollars.

    A single payer plan would save billions of dollars. Each taxpayer would pay a modest tax, but no premium, no deductible, no co-insurance, no pre-certs, no denials of care. And every man, woman, child, spouse, domestic partner, student, professor and administrator would be covered.

    Call your Rep in Congress, urge him/her to join the 85 co-sponsors of HR 676, the single payer bill.

    Faculty at Virginia are caught in a short-term, short-sighted attempt at a fix right now--but I encourage them to get involved in the growing movement for "single payer."

    [Thanks to B. Fuller, R. Elmore and G. Orfield (1996) for the "Who chooses? Who loses?" quote. Their book is actually about he pros and cons of school choice.]

  • Risk and Reward?
  • Posted by kgotthardt on October 25, 2007 at 1:45pm EDT
  • A University is encouraging staff, faculty and administrators to risk their health and their financial futures? I'd like to hear from some of the underpaid staff or faculty what they think of this "educated" approach.