SCOTUS upholds PPACA, industry ready to tackle ongoing health care issues
By Marli D. Riggs
June 28, 2012
Source: eba.benefitnews.com
The Court ruled 5-4 Thursday with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal wing. Roberts in the opinion noted that the individual mandate — the core provision of reform that would pay for many of its initiatives — “is not a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause,” which covers congressional ability to regulate commerce. However, the Court added that Congress has the authority to implement the mandate under the taxing clauses of the Constitution.
Brokers reacted strongly to the ruling, but say while it will take time to fully understand the impact of it on their business and clients, the health care system in America remains broken, with continued rising costs.
“It will likely take several months to sort through the implications, political and otherwise,” says LouAnne Drenckhahn, human resources and compliance consultant at Edina, Minn.-based David Martin Agency. “The current state of our health care system is not a result of PPACA. We have seen the cost of health care rising too quickly and employers exiting the employer-based health care system for years. Our health care system as a whole has not been working as efficiently as it could.”
The Act does not fix the rising cost of health care in this county, adds Perry Braun, executive director of Benefit Advisors Network.
“Insurance market reform, reforming and regulating the distribution and marketing, as well as regulating the development of insurance premiums and how you reimburse and compensate providers are not the only aspect of the cost equation,” he says. “The Act does not address the demand side of the equation, which is where an equal amount of attention should be given.”
Adam Bruckman, president and CEO of Atlanta-based Digital Insurance, the nation’s largest employee benefits-only agency, echoed those statements, saying that the United States “still does not have measures in place to control a [health care] system that is on an unsustainable cost trajectory. If we are to effect meaningful change, we are obligated to devise methods to curb rising expenses.”
Bruckman says that the solution system is a system that produces “engaged” health care consumers that can be achieved through innovation, “not through mandates, regulation and government programs. Evolution must be led by the private sector and requires collaboration between benefits advisors, employers, insurance carriers, providers and consumers.”
Industry organizations were quick to offer their opinion as well about the Court’s decision and cite most specifically the costly compliance burden on employers in America.
“This ruling offers some clarity on the future of the health insurance industry and allows American individuals, families and businesses to adjust to the law,” says Janet Trautwein, CEO of the National Association of Health Underwriters. “While we still have concerns that PPACA does not address the true drivers of health insurance costs in this country, and the law is having a huge and costly compliance burden on American employers, it is our responsibility as industry leaders to move forward within the constraints of the law to help Americans access high-quality, affordable health care.”
Trautwein adds that there are still legislative actions that can be taken to fix parts of the health care law and though they support some of the efforts, NAHU’s focus is to help customers transition to the policies, procedures and regulations PPACA outlines.
“It is imperative that the administration and regulatory agencies provide information in a timely manner on the many aspects of PPACA that remain unclear,” Trautwein says.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners President and Florida Insurance Commissioner Kevin M. McCarty said that they “will continue to work to give regulators the tools they need to ensure a stable health insurance marketplace in the states. Where the ACA provides states with latitude, regulators will continue to work with insurers, consumer groups and the public to provide the best regulatory framework going forward.”
The ruling leaves intact new health care programs in various stages of implementation, including substantial expansion of community care centers in medically underserved regions, accountable care organizations with coordinated population health management programs, coverage for persons with pre-existing medical conditions, coverage on parental policies for adult children up to age 26, and lower prescription drug costs for many persons, particularly those on Medicare.
Robert Miller, president of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, says that the organizations “primary health care reform goal is to ensure access to affordable health services in a sustainable, competitive insurance market without jeopardizing the high quality of care and service expected by consumers.”
NAIFA believes Congressional modification is needed and will ask the following of Congress:
• Remove agent commissions from the medical loss ratio (MLR)
• Repeal the CLASS Act
• Raise or remove the contribution cap for flexible spending arrangements (FSAs)
• Reverse the 3.8% tax on unearned income (including annuities)
• Enhance HSA and FSA use
• Build on the employer-based system
• Reduce consumer costs
Be sure to tune into EBA’s exclusive web seminar that will be held this afternoon at 2 p.m. EST and will give a detailed review of the ruling and impact analysis for health benefit plan sponsors and advisers. The web seminar will feature a Q&A session with the speakers to provide an opportunity for you to get answers to your most urgent questions.
Check out our new slideshow as employee benefit brokers and consultants across the country react and share their plans for moving forward.
Listen as Diane Boyle, VP of Federal Government Relations at the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors, shares the organization’s top priority in this exclusive podcast.
The House will vote on a full repeal of Barack Obama's health care law during the week of July 9, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday.
How US health care reform will affect employee benefits
Shubham Singhal, Jeris Stueland, and Drew Ungerman
Source: Healthcare Systems and Services Practice
US health care reform sets in motion the largest change in employer-provided health benefits in the post–World War II era. While the pace and timing are difficult to predict, McKinsey research points to a radical restructuring of employer-sponsored health benefits following the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Many of the law’s relevant provisions take effect in 2014. Our research suggests that when employers become more aware of the new economic and social incentives embedded in the law and of the option to restructure benefits beyond dropping or keeping them, many will make dramatic changes. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only about 7 percent of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) will have to switch to subsidized-exchange policies in 2014. However, our early-2011 survey of more than 1,300 employers across industries, geographies, and employer sizes, as well as other proprietary research, found that reform will provoke a much greater response. See more information about the survey methodology.
- Overall, 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI in the years after 2014.
- Among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than 50 percent, and upward of 60 percent will pursue some alternative to traditional ESI.
- At least 30 percent of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries.
- Contrary to what many employers assume, more than 85 percent of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employer stopped offering ESI, although about 60 percent would expect increased compensation.
In this new world, employers must quickly examine the implications of health care reform on their benefit and workforce strategies, as well as the opportunities and risks that reform generates. Of course, the type and extent of the changes employers make will vary by industry, collective-bargaining agreements, and other constraints. Most employers, however, will find value-creating options between the extremes of completely dropping employee health coverage and making no changes to the current offering. Even employers that intend to provide benefits similar to those they currently offer can take no-regrets moves, like tailoring plans to maximize what their employees will value most about ESI after 2014. Employers pursuing more radical changes will have to rethink benefit packages for higher-income employees.
And all employers must continue to keep in mind their employees’ health and wellness needs, even as insurance coverage levels evolve. To serve employers, insurers must retool their business models to provide more consultative support during the transition and develop innovative approaches to support employers’ new benefit strategies (see sidebar “Implications for health insurers”). For employers and insurers, success after 2014 will require a better understanding of employee and employer segments, and the development of the right capabilities and partnerships to manage the transition.
A transformed employer market
Health care reform fundamentally alters the social contract inherent in employer-sponsored medical benefits and how employees value health insurance as a form of compensation. The new law guarantees the right to health insurance regardless of an individual’s medical status. In doing so, it minimizes the moral obligation employers may feel to cover the sickest employees, who would otherwise be denied coverage in today’s individual health insurance market. Reform preserves the corporate tax advantages associated with offering health benefits—except for high-premium “Cadillac” insurance plans.
Starting in 2014, people who are not offered affordable health insurance coverage by their employers will receive income-indexed premium and out-of-pocket cost-sharing subsidies. The highest subsidies will be offered to the lowest-income workers. That reduces the social-equity advantage of employer-sponsored insurance, by enabling these workers to obtain coverage they could not afford on today’s individual market. It also significantly increases the availability of substitutes for employer coverage. As a result, whether to offer ESI after 2014 becomes mostly a business decision. Employers will have to balance the need to remain attractive to talented workers with the net economics of providing benefits—taking into consideration all the penalties and tax advantages of offering or not offering any given level of coverage.
What the law says
Health care reform imposes several new requirements on employer health benefits. Some changes will be incremental; for example, annual and lifetime limits on care must be eliminated, and coverage must be offered to dependents through age 26. Plans with premiums above certain levels will be subject to a so-called Cadillac tax.1
Other requirements are game changing and could prompt employers to completely reconsider what benefits they offer to employees. Reform requires all employers with more than 50 employees to offer health benefits to every full-timer or to pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker (less the first 30). The benefits must provide a reasonable level of health coverage, and (except for grandfathered plans) employers will no longer be able to offer better benefits to their highly compensated executives than to their hourly employees. These requirements will increase medical costs for many companies. It’s important to note that the penalty for not offering coverage is set significantly below these costs.
Reform also offers options for workers to obtain affordable insurance outside the workplace. Individuals who are unemployed or whose employers do not offer affordable health coverage, and whose household incomes are less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level,2 are eligible for subsidies toward policies they will be able to purchase on newly created state insurance exchanges. These will offer individual and family policies of set benefit levels (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) from a variety of payers.
The subsidies will cap the amount lower- and middle-income individuals and families will have to spend on health coverage, to 9.5 percent of household income for those at 400 percent of the federal poverty level and less for those at lower income levels. The subsidies will keep the cost of insurance coverage from the exchanges below what many employees now pay toward employer-sponsored coverage, especially for those whose earnings are less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
A bigger effect than expected
As we have seen, a Congressional Budget Office report estimated that only 9 million to 10 million people, or about 7 percent of employees, currently covered by ESI would have to switch to subsidized exchange policies in 2014. Most surveys of employers likewise show relatively low interest in shifting employees from traditional ESI.
Our survey found, however, that 45 to 50 percent of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to ESI in the years after 2014. Those alternatives include dropping coverage, offering it through a defined-contribution model, or in effect offering it only to certain employees. More than 30 percent of employers overall, and 28 percent of large ones, say they will definitely or probably drop coverage after 2014.
Our survey shows significantly more interest in alternatives to ESI than other sources do, for several reasons. Interest in these alternatives rises with increasing awareness of reform, and our survey educated respondents about its implications for their companies and employees before they were asked about post-2014 strategies. The propensity of employers to make big changes to ESI increases with awareness largely because shifting away will be economically rational not only for many of them but also for their lower-income employees, given the law’s incentives.
We also asked respondents questions about their philosophy and decision-making process for benefits: the current rationale for providing them, which employee group is considered most when decisions are made about them, their importance in the respondent’s industry, and geography. These questions prompted the respondents to consider all the factors that will influence their post-2014 decisions. Finally, we tested options beyond dropping coverage outright. These alternatives will probably be the most effective ones for delivering a reasonable return on a company’s investment in benefit programs after 2014. We would therefore expect to see a level of interest higher than that generated by surveys asking only about plans to keep or drop ESI.
Estimating the employer impact
As employers consider their post-2014 options, they should take a dynamic view by considering how competitors for talent—other employers—and their own employees will react. Many employers will be shifting from ESI; it is unlikely that only one company in an industry or geography will move away from it.
ESI might also be less valuable than most employers assume. Among employers not likely to drop ESI, three of the top five reasons given (and two of the top three) were concerns about talent attraction, employee satisfaction, and productivity. Among employees, however, McKinsey consumer research found that more than 85 percent—and almost 90 percent of higher-income ones—say they would remain with an employer that dropped ESI. Overall, employees value cash compensation several times more than health coverage. Further, many younger employees also value career-development opportunities and work–life balance more than health benefits.
Making employees whole
To make up for lost medical insurance, most employers that drop ESI will increase employee compensation in other ways, such as salary and other benefits like vacation time, retirement, or health-management programs. Employees think this will happen: 60 percent say they would expect employers to increase compensation if health benefits were dropped, our consumer research shows. Employers will do so to remain competitive for talent. In addition, ensuring some level of employee health, through higher investment in wellness programs or another mechanism, helps to maintain the productivity of workers.
Our research found that even with conservatively low assumptions about eligibility for employee subsidies, at least 30 percent of employers would benefit economically by dropping health coverage even if they make employees 100 percent whole. Employers could do so by paying sufficient additional compensation to help employees purchase coverage with no other out-of-pocket expense (less subsidies for employees with household incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level), the additional individual income and payroll taxes levied on the increased compensation, and the $2,000 government penalty.
But we believe that employers will not have to provide 100 percent of the value of the lost insurance. If so, even more employers will benefit economically. In the course of our research, we interviewed executives at Liazon, a defined-contribution-benefit company. They have found that when employees are shifted from coverage selected by their employer to a defined-contribution plan (under which the employer provides a fixed dollar amount and the employee can choose how to allocate it among a variety of benefit options), about 70 percent of employees choose a less expensive health plan.
Higher-income employees, who won’t receive subsidies and would have to pay the entire cost of individual coverage out of pocket, will have a greater need to be made whole. These higher-income employees, however, are also more likely to be satisfied with partial compensation or with tax-advantaged forms of compensation, such as retirement benefits.
The need to make employees whole will decrease over time. Subsidies will be awarded to keep premiums below a fixed percentage of an individual’s household income. As long as income continues to rise at a rate lower than that of medical inflation, even employees who initially have to pay more out of pocket toward an exchange policy than they would toward ESI will have less of a difference to make up each year, and the employer will have to provide less to make employees whole.3
This development should not suggest, however, that employers considering the elimination of ESI are focused exclusively on the bottom line, at the expense of their employees. In fact, because of the subsidies, many low-income employees will be able to obtain better health coverage, for less out of pocket, on an exchange than from their employer.
In fact, employers indicating that they will definitely or probably drop (or otherwise shift from) ESI post-2014 are more likely to consider the impact on low-income workers (as opposed to other groups of employees) when making benefit decisions and two to three times more likely to view benefits as important to attracting talent in their industry and geography. These employers are considering shifting from ESI not because they don’t care about their employees but because they recognize that, after 2014, ESI may not be the most efficient way to provide health coverage (see sidebar “The range of coverage options for employers”).
Getting ready for the new world
To prepare for 2014, employers should explore the economics of benefits after reform, maximize the return on investment (ROI) of benefit packages, design them for higher-income employees, and satisfy the health and wellness needs of the whole workforce.
Explore the economics of postreform benefits
Employers must understand, at the microsegment level, the eligibility of employees for subsidies under different scenarios—for example, when the employer provides no coverage at all, coverage defined as “unaffordable” (at a premium above 9.5 percent of the household income) for some employees, or coverage above the Cadillac-plan threshold. Companies must determine the cost of making employees whole, using market research tools to find out how much they value ESI, cash compensation for it, and a variety of other benefits. The importance for workers of a given benefit may not correlate directly with its tax-adjusted cost to the employer.
Maximize the ROI of the benefit package
The discussion to date has largely focused on dropping versus keeping coverage, but for most employers the most value-creating options lie in between. Employers should evaluate the economic impact not only of expanding ESI to every employee (compared with dropping it completely) but also of shifting toward part-time labor, allowing lower-wage employees to qualify for exchange subsidies through setting premiums above 9.5 percent of their household income, or adopting defined-contribution models. These intermediate options will probably be the most effective way to secure a reasonable ROI for benefits after 2014, because they enable employers to provide the best possible result for each segment of employees—ESI for higher-income ones not eligible for subsidies, as well as affordable coverage from a subsidized exchange for lower-income workers.
Even employers that continue to offer ESI—and many will, especially in heavily unionized industries where flexibility may be limited—could make no-regrets moves to maximize the ROI of benefits after 2014. Market research tools could be used to determine the preferences of employees, so that the benefit plan emphasizes what they value most while minimizing other features. Other strategies would involve designing plans and enrollment features to reduce costs, pricing plans to promote responsible use, and ensuring that wellness spending produces a positive return. Retiree medical benefits could be shifted from traditional ESI toward Medicare (the federal government’s health care program for those 65 and older) and Medicare Advantage (the private-sector version of the government plan).
Design benefit packages for higher-income employees
Because lower-income employees will be eligible for exchange subsidies if their employers don’t offer them affordable health coverage, we expect that ESI will shift toward higher-income employees. This group will have more demanding expectations for service levels and convenience, as well as different attitudes toward benefits covered.
Employers should tailor their ESI offering to include navigation tools that make it easier to identify and get appointments with high-quality health care providers and fast access to well-informed people for assistance with billing or coverage issues. These services could be provided through partnerships with enterprises that specialize in explaining medical bills and pricing. Higher-income employees may also value preferred-access or other enhanced-care physician services more than a traditional Cadillac ESI plan. These alternative benefits may be more cost effective for employers once the Cadillac tax comes into effect, in 2018.
Satisfy employee health and wellness needs
Even for an employer that drops ESI for all or some employees, maintaining their health, productivity, and satisfaction will continue to be important. Employers could not only expand or refine wellness programs to focus on elements that have a substantive, positive, and documentable impact on employee health and satisfaction but also provide the right incentives to encourage participation. In addition, employers could establish clinics at work sites, or partnerships with local providers or pharmacies so that employees can easily and affordably receive preventative care, such as flu shots or annual physicals. Another way to keep employees satisfied and avoid disrupting their lives would be to partner with a broker or another enterprise that helps them understand their benefit options and enroll for coverage on insurance exchanges.
Employers should recognize that as the ESI market changes after 2014, the system will react dynamically. If many companies drop health insurance coverage, the government could increase the employer penalty or raise taxes. Employers will need to be aware of actions by participants at any point along the health care value chain and prepare to adapt quickly.
Whether your company is poised to shift from employer-sponsored insurance or will continue to offer the same benefit package it does now, health care reform will change the economics of your workforce and benefits, as well as how your employees value coverage. Understanding these changes at a granular level will enable your company to gain or defend a competitive advantage in the increasingly dynamic market for talent.
What The Health Care Decision Means for Your Small Business
The Supreme Court decision Thursday upholds the Affordable Care Act. But as a small-business owner, you may wonder what that means for you.
Most of the law's key provisions are set to take effect roughly two years from now, on January 1, 2014.
Based on the ruling, all individuals -- including small-business owners -- must have health insurance starting in 2014, or pay a penalty.
Certainly, the cost of health insurance has become a significant issue for small firms over the past decade.
Overall, about 71% of firms with 10 to 24 employees offered health insurance in 2011, compared with 77% in 2001, according to a 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey. Of firms with three to nine workers, just 48% offered insurance in 2011, compared with 58% in 2001.
The high-profile decision is a blow to the National Federation of Independent Business, a Washington, D.C., lobbying group that joined 26 states in fighting the mandate. The NFIB argued that small businesses would suffer if the owners of those entities had to pay for their own health insurance. The NFIB spent more than $1.2 million on the lawsuit in 2010 alone, according to disclosures.
Here's a look at how you might be affected:
Q. What if I am a one-person business?
A. The impact for sole-proprietors and others with no employees will be much like the impact on individuals.
For people in this group, the crux of the 2014 roll-out is the individual mandate, which requires all U.S. citizens and legal residents to have health coverage or pay a penalty.
You, as a one-person business, would buy insurance through your state's benefits exchange that will roll out in 2014.
There are some exemptions, however, such as those from certain religious backgrounds and those who are eligible for the so-called "hardship exemption" if the cost of the annual premium exceeds 8% of household income.
There are penalties intended to ensure compliance. The top penalty for individuals, once fully phased in, for not having insurance is $695 or 2.5% of income -- whichever is greater.
Q. I have employees or may be hiring. What provisions impact me?
A. If you have employees, the health-care provisions are a bit more complicated.
Since 2010, firms with fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees have been eligible for a tax break if you cover at least half the cost of health insurance. (Full-time equivalent is the number of employees on full-time schedules plus the number of employees on part-time schedules, converted to a full-time basis.)
But only if you have fewer than 10 full-time equivalent employees and average salaries of $25,000 or less is your firm eligible for the full credit. Today, that full credit is 35% of your contribution toward an employee's insurance premium. As your firm size and average wage amount goes up, the tax credit goes down. And once your business hits 25 full-time equivalent employees or $50,000 in average salaries, the credit is completely phased out.
Q. What happens to the tax credits going forward?
A. In 2014, the state-based Small Business Health Options Program Exchanges will be open to small firms. And getting insurance through those exchanges could bump the maximum tax credit to 50% of your contribution, up from the current 35%.
But the tax credits won't last. The credit is only available for a maximum of five years and only two years once the exchanges are up and running.
Q. Will I have to provide health insurance to my employees in 2014?
A. No firm is mandated to provide insurance, but in 2014, only the smallest businesses will be exempt from penalties if they don't.
Q. What are the penalties and under what circumstances would I be exempt?
A. Once your firm reaches 50 full-time equivalent employees, a penalty will kick in if you fail to provide coverage for employees who average 30 or more hours a week in a given month. The penalty is $2,000 for each full-time employee in excess of 30 full-time employees. There are no penalties if part-time employees are not offered coverage.
A key factor in calculating the penalty is that the equation isn't based on full-time equivalents, but rather on actual full-time employees. That means some businesses that are subject to the penalty may end up owing nothing.
Here's a basic example: Say your firm has 25 full-time employees and 50 half-time employees that, combined, equal 25 full-time equivalents. Your firm, in effect, has 50 full-time equivalents and would be subject to the penalty if you don't provide health-care coverage. However, your penalty cost likely would be zero because the $2,000 tally starts at the 31st full-time employee and you only have 25 full-time employees.
Q. What should I know about getting insurance for my employees?
A. You can't just buy any old insurance to avoid the penalty. You have to provide so-called "minimum essential" and "affordable" coverage. Minimum essential coverage means covering 60% of the actuarial value of the cost of the benefits. And affordable means the premium for the coverage of the individual employee cannot exceed 9.5% of the employee's household income.
If the coverage you offer is unaffordable, qualifying employees can get subsidized coverage through the tax credit on the state exchanges. In such a case, you will have to pay the lesser of $3,000 per subsidized full-time employee, or the $2,000-per-employee penalty after the first 30 full-time employees.
Both sides poised for healthcare ruling
Source: thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch
By Sam Baker
Lawmakers and interest groups don’t know how the Supreme Court will rule on President Obama’s healthcare law, but they’re ready to respond as soon as the decision is released.
The court is expected to issue its decision shortly after 10 a.m. Thursday. Once the ruling is announced, the courthouse steps and the Capitol, just across the street, will become circuses of spin.
House Republicans will likely hold multiple press conferences throughout the day. The party leadership will likely want to address the ruling, especially if the court strikes down all or part of the law.
The GOP’s Doctors’ Caucus is also planning a news conference Thursday afternoon. And Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) reportedly reserved space outside the Capitol to hold her own event.
President Obama is scheduled to be in meetings at the White House all day Thursday. A White House spokesman would not say whether he will have any public comments in the wake of the court’s ruling on his signature domestic achievement.
A spokeswoman for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign did not respond to a question about Romney’s schedule Thursday.
The healthcare case has greater short-term political implications than any case since Bush v. Gore, which decided the 2000 presidential election.
A victory at the Supreme Court would be an enormous boon to either side, yet pundits and strategists from both parties have also suggested that the losing side might gain a political upper hand by using the decision to rally its base.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), however, warned his caucus last week not to “spike the football” if the court strikes down the healthcare law. Excessive celebration could detract from the party’s focus on the economy, he said.
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), a physician, said focusing on healthcare as an issue doesn’t have to cross the line into cheering the demise of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
“The reason this isn’t a cause for celebration is that the status quo is unacceptable,” Price told The Hill in an interview.
Even if the court upholds the ACA, Republican leaders plan to press ahead with another vote to repeal the law.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said at a press conference Tuesday that if the court leaves any of the law standing, Republicans will try to repeal it and replace it with “step-by-step reforms” of their own.
A Senate Republican leadership aide would not provide specifics about the party’s plans following Thursday’s decision or say whether Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has delivered the same message as Boehner about “spiking the football.”
Democrats, meanwhile, aren’t especially thrilled that the decision will come just before the weeklong July 4 recess — meaning healthcare will dominate the headlines following Thursday’s ruling and will then be back in the news once Congress returns and House Republicans move on to their repeal vote.
“If we were here, then we could then move rapidly to get something on the agenda, something in the hopper, to respond to this in a way that the American people would understand that we’re going to move ahead on this,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Harkin and his staff have been working on contingency plans in case the court strikes all or part of the law, but they will have to hold on to those options until after the July 4 holiday.
“As it is, we have these 10 days off,” he said. “I’m just wondering if the politically motivated Supreme Court didn’t plan it that way.”
Democrats will still get in on the initial reaction, however.
Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the leaders of the House Progressive Caucus, are planning a rally just outside the Supreme Court immediately following the decision.
The plaza outside the court has been slowly filling with protesters and interested onlookers as the healthcare ruling draws nearer. Although protests Thursday aren’t expected to rival the sea of activism that surrounded the court during oral arguments, protesters had amassed a respectable presence Monday amid the crush of TV crews camped out in front of the court.
Four Scenarios for Thursday’s Ruling on Health Care
Source: blogs.wsj.com/washwire
By Brent Kendall and Peter Landers
WASHINGTON–The Supreme Court’s eagerly awaited ruling on the 2010 federal health-care law is expected on Thursday, when the court will announce its final opinions of the term.
The high court announced two decisions on Monday. Three more, including the health-care case, remain pending.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced from the bench that Thursday will be the court’s final session before it takes a summer break. The chief justice said all remaining opinions will be announced then.
On the health care law, here are the most likely four scenarios on how the court could rule, as first laid out by Law Blog last week, shown in order of how much of the law would be struck down:
Scenario #1: The entire law is upheld.
The high court may conclude—as the majority of lower courts did—that Congress was acting within its powers under the Constitution when it required most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. That provision was at the center of the two-year legal battle, and if it survives, the rest of the law is likely to stay as well.
Such a ruling would be a victory for Democrats and President Barack Obama, who had passed the biggest reworking to the health system since the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and faced the prospect of the court nullifying their effort. It would also avert disruption for hospitals, doctors and employers who have spent more than two years preparing for changes in the law.
Even in this case, however, the law would face an uncertain future. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and GOP congressional leaders have pledged to repeal the law if they take control of Congress and the White House in November elections.
Scenario #2: The insurance mandate is struck down, but the entire rest of law stays.
This was the ruling of a federal appeals court in Atlanta last year, and the Supreme Court may choose to uphold it. In this scenario, the high court would conclude that Congress exceeded its powers with the requirement to carry insurance or pay a penalty. But it would judge that provision separable from the rest of the law.
This would be the worst-case scenario for insurance companies and set off a scramble for the Obama administration and supporters of the law to prove that it could still work. Unless Congress took further action, insurers would be required accept all customers starting in 2014–even those who are already sick–without imposing surcharges for pre-existing medical conditions. At the same time, the court’s ruling would mean people wouldn’t be required to carry health coverage. Insurers say that would lead to chaos in the market as people waited until they were sick to sign up for policies.
Scenario #3: The mandate and two related provisions are struck down but the rest of the law stays.
At Supreme Court arguments in March, the Obama administration, fearing the market chaos in scenario #2, argued that the insurance mandate was inextricably linked to two other provisions. Those provisions require insurers to accept all customers and restrict the insurers from charging more based on a person’s medical history. The administration said if the mandate were struck down, the other two provisions should go too.
If the court adopts that position, it would mean that the principal aim of the law—expanding coverage to tens of millions of Americans—would be unlikely to be achieved. Republicans would feel vindicated and push to repeal the rest of the law.
While not as disruptive as scenario #2 for health insurers, this scenario would still create broad uncertainty in the health business. Many parts of the law would remain, including those setting up new marketplaces in 2014 where consumers can shop for policies and get subsidies for coverage. Companies with 50 or more workers would have to start offering a set level of health benefits in 2014 or pay a fine.
Supporters of the law have said those provisions could still function, but questions would be sure to arise whether the marketplaces were workable without the core of the law.
Scenario #4: The entire law is struck down.
If the high court concludes that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional, it may agree with challengers that the only path is to invalidate the entire law.
Such a ruling would unravel all the work by the health industry and local governments preparing for the law. It would be a painful blow to Mr. Obama and Democrats who spent so much time and political capital on their health-care overhaul. Yet it would also put pressure on Republicans. They could no longer talk about repealing what they term ObamaCare but would have to figure out what, if anything, to bring before Congress to replace it. Gerald F. Seib discussed Republican challenges in the event of a negative ruling here.
Wellness programs could mitigate projected 2013 health care cost increases
By David Morgan
May 31, 2012
Source: https://eba.benefitnews.com
WASHINGTON | Thu., May 31, 2012 12:00am EDT (Reuters) — The cost of U.S. health care services is expected to rise 7.5% in 2013, more than three times the projected rates for U.S. inflation and economic growth, according to an industry research report from PricewaterhouseCoopers.
But premiums for large employer-sponsored health plans could increase by only 5.5% as a result of company wellness programs and a growing trend toward plans that impose higher insurance costs on workers, the firm concluded.
The projected growth rate of 7.5% for overall health care costs contrasts with expectations for growth of 2.4% in U.S. gross domestic product and a 2% rise in consumer prices during 2013, according to the latest Reuters economic survey.
Health care costs have long been known to outstrip economic growth and inflation rates, driving up government spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid at a time when federal policymakers and lawmakers are wrangling over how to trim the U.S. budget deficit of $1 trillion a year.
But PwC's Health Research Institute, which based its research on input from health plan actuaries, industry leaders, analyst reports and employer surveys, said data for the past three years suggest an extended slowdown in healthcare inflation from earlier decades when annual costs rose by double-digits.
"We're in the early beginnings of a shift toward consumerism in health care. And we think that you'll see more of that in the coming months and years," said Ceci Connolly, the health institute's managing director.
More than half of the 1,400 employers surveyed by the firm are considering increasing their employees' share of health benefit costs and expanding health and wellness programs in 2013, according to the report.
Connolly said health plans with higher deductibles and co-pays for workers tend to dissuade unnecessary purchases and offer lower premium costs for employers, while successful wellness programs can reduce the need for medical services.
The report said prospects for higher growth are also being held back by the consolidation of hospitals and physician practices, insurance industry pressure on hospital expenses, a growing variety of primary care options such as workplace and retail health clinics, price transparency and the increasing use of generic drugs.
Upward pressure on health care costs comes in part from a rebounding economy and the growth of new medical technologies, including robotic surgery and the nuclear medicine imaging technique known as positron emission tomography.
PwC's projection of 7.5% growth is nearly double a 3.9% rise in U.S. health care spending that the federal government says occurred in 2010, the last year for which official figures are available.
Supreme Court to deliver healthcare ruling on Thursday
By Elise Viebeck - 06/25/12
Source: thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch
The final countdown has begun for the landmark decision on President Obama’s healthcare law.
The justices will render judgment on the controversial law on Thursday, ending months of speculation about a ruling that could have far-reaching implications for the 2012 election and beyond.
The ruling will come shortly after 10 a.m. Thursday, at the end of an action-packed week for lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Anticipation grew over the weekend that the Supreme Court would issue the healthcare decision on Monday morning. Instead, the court ruled in the high-profile Arizona immigration case, while announcing that the remaining decisions for the term — including the health case, Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services — would not be issued until Thursday.
The three-day deferral left Washington in a state of nervous anticipation for the ruling, which will have election-year ramifications for Democrats and Republicans alike. Congressional offices have been preparing their responses for months, though no one outside the court knows what fate awaits Obama’s signature law.
“We’re keeping a close eye on it. Absolutely. We’re having a war room every day — every Monday and Thursday,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) recently told The Hill.
The wealth of possible outcomes means that outside groups have also taken pains to prepare.
The pro-reform group Families USA, for example, already has eight statements pre-written about the decision. The advocacy group is hoping that one will match the final conclusion and enable the group to respond immediately.
By some estimates, between 50 and 100 people at or associated with the court already know the outcome in the healthcare case.
The court's customary practice is to meet in a private conference following oral arguments, discuss the case in order of seniority, then take an initial vote on how to rule — meaning the nine justices and their clerks have probably known the decision since the oral arguments in March.
But the court is a master of keeping decisions under lock and key, and hasn’t suffered a leak for ahead of a scheduled announcement for decades.
On Monday, the court did rule on one major case — striking down three out of four provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law.
According to SCOTUSblog, journalists in the court chambers Monday knew no healthcare decision was imminent after a comment from Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Justice [Anthony] Kennedy has our second and final decision of the day, inArizona v. United States," Roberts reportedly said.
At that point, nearly 90,000 people were watching SCOTUSblog, a specialized site that has become the go-to resource for court-watchers in Washington.
Since Kennedy authored the majority opinion in the Arizona case, Roberts will “almost certainly” be the author of the majority opinion on healthcare reform, according to SCOTUSblog.
Happy Hour at Work?
June 4, 2012
By Denis Storey
Source: benefitspro.com
The headline that jumped off my iPad this morning was all I needed to see: “Is beer in the workplace an employee benefit?”
I jumped to my feet with my hands in the air like I was back in church.
Then I slumped back down. In this compliance-heavy era, where lawsuits are more common than doctors’ notes, how was this even possible?
But the blogger – Carol Harnett over at Human Resource Executive – went on to elaborate this stemmed from a panel discussion she’d hosted on wellness with Mark Torres, senior vice president of people and culture at The Rubicon Project. Shortly after joining the company, he polled his work force about their benefits, “which resulted in a strong staff request to retain the 24/7 beer refrigerator on the premises under the category of ‘the one thing we shouldn’t change.’”
Harnett touches on some other companies whose wellness programs venture into the progressive, to say the least.
(I’m kinda partial to Hulu’s, where their wellness plan amounts to an annual $700 check for each employee to spend any way they like to improve their own performance. But then I end up right back at the beer.)
My wife just got a new job. They apparently have these “Wellness Rooms,” where employees can go take a nap – presumably alone. Oh, and they have a “snow fairy,” an anonymous Samaritan who makes sure all the cars are cleared at the end of any our snowy Colorado workdays. And keep in mind: this isn’t some tech startup. She works for an 80-plus-year-old trade association.
My first thought – after asking about job openings – was how do you tell the difference between a perk and a benefit these days? Or is there one anymore? And where do wellness programs fit in to all of this?
Then it occurred to me we’re watching the slow, sometimes clumsy evolution of employee wellness. Many companies are getting it: that it goes far beyond gyms or smoking cessation programs. It’s about more than reducing claims or cutting costs. Simply put, it’s about getting (and keeping) happy, healthy employees. So how do you get there – booze, dark rooms or by just cutting a check?
And I think that the employers who take more of a holistic – if sometimes out-of-the-box – approach to wellness (and benefits in general) are the ones who are not only going to hang on to the best talent as we fight out way out of this economic malaise, but they’ll be far better positioned to attract the next generation of employees who live their entire lives out of the box.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m sleepy and I need a drink.
Health Care Reform: Four Companies That Are Leading Change
By Kathy Gersch
Source: Forbes.com
This week, Kathy Gersch, my Kotter International colleague, highlights four companies in the health care sector that are not waiting for a Supreme Court decision to transform their businesses.
The Supreme Court is set to rule on key provisions of the Affordable Care Act before the end of this month. With so much uncertainty around the future of the U.S. health care system, many companies have long been frozen, taking a “wait-and-see” approach to change, choosing to sit tight until the future becomes clearer.
But in a rapidly changing world, sitting tight can spell disaster.
“A leader of a large health care organization’s challenge is to play offense, not defense,” John Kotter wrote on this blog last summer. “If I were running a hospital… I would be focused on how do we make some significant change to take advantage of the opportunities that are going to be inevitable with this swirling, difficult, changing environment in health care.”
John is exactly right. And in the last few weeks alone, a number of hospitals and other health care providers have heeded his call and are taking drastic action.
The New York Times recently profiled one hospital in Brooklyn, New York — Maimonides Medical Center — whose leaders echoed John’s sentiments: “Win, lose or draw in court, administrators said, the policies driving the federal health care law are already embedded in big cuts and new payment formulas that hospitals ignore at their peril. And even if the law is repealed after the next election, the economic pressure to care differently for more people at lower cost is irreversible.”
With “value-based purchasing” programs mandated by the Affordable Care Act, where hospitals will be judged based on both cost and quality of care, Maimonides is taking major steps to boost patient satisfaction. As the Times reported, Maimonides “asked labor-management teams in every unit to invent their own improvement projects. In one initiative, nurses are making hourly rounds to offer patients extra help.” The hospital also provides valet parking and free Wi-Fi — certainly not business as usual.
Elsewhere in New York City, two of the largest hospital systems — NYU Langone Medical Center and Continuum Health Partners — are joining forces to boost their bargaining power with insurance providers and to cut costs, partly as a result of efficiency mandates outlined in the health care reform bill. Again, this is an example of medical organizations taking matters into their own hands and transforming the dynamics of the health care system, rather than allowing change to simply happen to them.
Insurance companies are also changing. As Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini explained to the Wall Street Journal last week, “If the Affordable Care Act were to go away tomorrow, we still would be better off as an organization, because who can argue with getting a lower health care delivery cost, more streamlined administrative structure, making yourself simpler and less complex to do business with? If that all happened and then health care reform went away, we would be better off and so would our customers.”
The leaders of UnitedHealthcare seem to agree. They made news recently when they pledged to keep popular coverage provisions mandated by the Affordable Care Act in place, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision. The company said it would continue offering policyholders no-copayment preventative services and third-party appeals for cases where treatments are denied. They also vowed, among other things, not to cancel policies retroactively, except when fraud had taken place. These are marked shifts in the way insurance companies typically operate.
In each of these examples, leaders are refusing to let complacency set in. They are not resting on their laurels, being myopic or tricking themselves into thinking that the old way of doing things will suffice in the future. The world is changing quickly, and those who fail to change with it are sure to be left behind. The winners will be in front of the transformation instead of behind the curve trying to catch up when things become “clear”. One thing is certain – change in healthcare will continue, and it’s accelerating. There is no point of perfect clarity.
5 things health reform supporters don’t want you to know
By Joanna Antongiovanni
Source: ifawebnews.com
As the Supreme Court of the United States will likely rule on health reform soon, conversations about the bill’s constitutionality are once again resurfacing. Aside from this debate, there are several flaws within the bill that contribute to its inability to best protect consumers from increasing rates and provide them with affordable coverage. Below are five things that supporters of health reform don’t want you to know.
A lack of focus
The bill is more focused on insurance costs and does not adequately address the main reason health care costs go up: the actual cost of care. This is a big problem because it overlooks what could really make a difference and solve some of the health care issues in our country. The Kaiser Family Foundation report predicts that the health care rebates employers can expect to receive is minimal, an average of $127 compared to premiums of $5,400 a year for an individual and $15,100 for a family. If these predictions are close to the actual rebates, it proves the bill’s insurance reforms and current medical loss ratios do not address the true cause of increasing premiums in our country.
One size doesn’t fit all
As health reform stands now, it fails to address the unique needs of each state. One of the mostly unpublicized outcomes of the medical loss ratio (MLR) requirements has been that carriers have opted to exit specific unprofitable markets or exit health group products altogether to concentrate on lines of business not affected by health reform.
In some states this has created an unfair advantage for the one or two carriers that remain.
Other plans have eliminated specific products such as “child only policies” citing the inability to cover the cost of the additional mandates placed on these policies at an affordable cost. In addition, doctors and hospitals in wealthy areas are more likely to pass along those costs to consumers in those areas, increasing health insurance costs in those regions.
What was originally intended to increase coverage to the uninsured and lower health insurance costs has in fact done the opposite. In addition, many states that are struggling to balance their budgets following the burden of Medicaid expansion are seeing red and increasing deficits. These states are looking for alternative ways to save money and state-funded programs like education are at risk for budget cuts.
The current exchanges don’t fit
One major oversight of the bill is that there is no exchange that exists today that would satisfy health reform’s exchange requirements. An exchange is a government manufactured insurance marketplace for individuals not covered for health insurance by their employers to shop for health insurance at competitive rates. None of the current exchanges that exist for health care work under the new bill, the health reform exchange is two parts Massachusetts exchange, one part Utah exchange and one part “other”.
It’s debatable if either the Massachusetts or Utah exchanges accomplishes what they are set out to do, that is, to provide a market for people to purchase affordable insurance.
The creation of the exchange itself did not make health insurance affordable as it never addressed the cost of care. This is an obvious problem as individuals that are not covered by their employer need to have an affordable alternative for health care. Instead of looking to examples of what would work, the exchange dreamed up by health reform is a conglomeration of different ideas hastily combined.
Pennies on the dollar
Did you know that health insurance companies only make 3 cents to 6 cents on the dollar for health insurance premiums?
Health reform’s misplaced blame on insurance companies will only result in more difficulty for employers and individuals to get the specific insurance policies that they need. If the insurance companies continue to be attacked, they will lose more money and have fewer agents who will be able to help consumers find a policy that meets both their financial and health needs. Again, the cost of care resurfaces as the larger influencer on health insurance premiums.
All bark and no bite
There is only one thing worse than a mandate…a mandate without teeth. The bill mandates individuals to purchase health insurance but the consequences for not purchasing insurance is so weak it begs the question about how serious lawmakers were about actually making people purchase insurance. As the law is written now, it will accelerate the destruction of the insurance industry as people, after they have done the math, will opt to pay the penalty rather than pay for coverage.
Only time will tell the Supreme Court’s final decision regarding health reform. Regardless, so long as the legislation fails to address the above issues, the bill will be ineffective in solving the health care conundrum in our country.