Can managed care reduce employers' retiree medical liability?

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has forced U.S. companies to look squarely at their current retiree health obligations and their future commitments. Accounting Statement No. 106 (FAS 106) requires employers to accrue liabilities for retiree health benefits during employees' active service, rather than record the costs as benefits are paid. Employers are scrambling to find ways to reduce the statement's effect on corporate balance sheets. While managed health care has been increasingly employed to control benefit costs in active employee health plans, it has not been as popular in retiree plans. This article reviews important demographic and health trends in the retiree population and summarizes employers' early responses to FAS 106. It explores why managed health care has thus far played a limited role in reducing employers' postretirement medical liability, and offers insight into how that role could be increased in the future.     

The impact of health care reform on older workers, retirees and employers

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 impacts everyone who uses or pays for the health care system. Among the new law's effects will be changes in older workers' health care choices as they transition from full-time employees to part-time work or other jobs and, ultimately, to retirement, and the retiree health benefit choices facing their employers. This article reviews the major issues surrounding these changes, including those affecting retiree health benefits, benefits for Medicare-eligible retirees and health care options for older Americans not yet eligible for Medicare. The authors conclude that although employers will be reacting in 2010 and 2011 with regard to some issues surrounding FASB ASC 715-60 and the early retiree reinsurance program, employers should consider waiting to make major changes until regulations are issued and the health plans for active employees have been fully vetted.     

HSA programs for groups: employer versus employee responsibilities

Employers implementing a health savings account (HSA) program face a shared compliance burden with their employees. The law dictates that all HSAs are individual accounts that must be opened by an Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-approved custodian or trustee. The individual account features combined with a required third-party custodian place much of the compliance burden for HSAs on the employee and custodian rather than the employer. Employees are compensated for the additional burden because HSAs give them more control over their health care money, and employers are generally pleased with their own reduced compliance burden. The shared compliance responsibilities, however, create confusion and misunderstanding for both employers and employees. This article distinguishes between the responsibilities of the employer and the employees for HSAs.     

The Employer's Role in Reforming the U.S. Health Care System

In 2005 large U.S. employers spent an average of almost $7,400 per head on health care benefits, a 73% increase in the last five years. If the current trend continues, American companies may find it difficult to compete in a global marketplace where international competitors provide labor with heath care at a fraction of U.S. costs. This article argues that effective reform of the U.S. health care system will require major efforts from all major “stakeholders,” starting with the federal government and state and local governments and including insurance companies and the “consumers” of health care services. By far the important role, however, is reserved for private‐sector employers, which have been the incubator for recent innovations in American health care and are in the best position to coordinate and drive health care reform. But incremental steps in cost‐sharing, small‐scale pilot projects of consumer‐based designs, and employee awareness campaigns will not be enough. Employers need to take radical steps to break through the inertia that has built up among all stakeholders over the past 50 years. Chief among the author's proposals for employers are the following:

• ? In choosing a health care plan for employees, use value‐based purchasing criteria that consider more than just the price and access to services.
• ? Help consumers by demanding information from providers and insurers about the cost and efficacy of health care services, and of alternative treatments, before the choices are made.
• ? Encourage “consumerism” by setting up benefit plans that have a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) or a Health Savings Account (HSA) component.

As the author states in closing, “Let these reforms begin with employers as the organizing force to drive needed change across the system. That may very well be the only way to save our employment‐based model.”     

Health care spending accounts: a flexible solution for Canadian employers

Flexible benefits plans have grown more slowly in Canada than in the United States, largely because of certain legal and regulatory considerations. Health care spending accounts (HCSAs) provide a cost-effective way for Canadian employers to address the health care benefit needs of a diverse workforce. A flexible health care spending account is a versatile and cost-effective instrument that can be used by Canadian employers that wish to provide a full range of health care benefits to employees. The health care alternatives available through an HCSA can provide employees with an opportunity to customize and optimize their benefits program. Regulatory requirements that an HCSA must meet in order to qualify for available tax advantages are discussed, as are the range of health care services that may be covered.     

Integrating benefits decision making

Integrated employee benefit decision making helps employees use their benefits more wisely and identify opportunities to balance their immediate benefits needs (such as health care) and future benefits needs (such as retirement). This article discusses how employers can overcome employees' behavioral barriers to making integrated employee benefit decisions by changing the ways benefits are communicated and employees are presented with action decisions. Undertaking these steps allows employers to not only improve their employees' overall financial perspectives, but also furthers plan sponsors' goals of actively promoting personal responsibility with respect to retirement funding and changing employee behavior with respect to controlling health care costs.     

Defining the road ahead: thinking strategically in the new era of health care reform

Understanding the implications of the new health care reform legislation, including those provisions that do not take effect for several years, will be critical in developing a successful strategic plan under the new environment of health care reform and avoiding unintended consequences of decisions made without the benefit of long-term thinking. Although this article is not a comprehensive assessment of the challenges and opportunities that exist under health care reform, nor a layout of all of the issues, it looks at some of the key areas in order to demonstrate why employers need to identify critical pathways and the associated risks and benefits of each decision. Key health care reform areas include insurance market reforms, grandfather rules, provisions that have the potential to influence the underlying cost of health care, the individual mandate, the employer mandate (including the free-choice voucher program) and the excise tax on high-cost plans.     

Consumer-driven health care: the future is now

Given that managed care seems to have run its course, employers are forced to deal with escalating health care costs by reducing benefits and lowering pay--or are they? Why not bring the power of the responsible, informed consumer to health care? Consumer-driven health care offers a new, economically rational direction that can simultaneously address the needs of both employers and employees. This article reviews the factors leading to the need for consumer-driven health care and describes the characteristics and benefits of its current and next generations of development.     

Self‐Funding of Health‐Care Plans by Small Firms: Risks and Reforms

Small employers that offer health insurance have usually offered fully insured products through traditional health plans. Recently, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has created new requirements for fully insured products that will entice more small firms to fund their own health‐care benefits. However, self‐funding poses significant risks to these small firms, their employees, and state exchanges. To mitigate some of these risks within current political realities, we recommend advance disclosures—to small firms of material changes in their stop‐loss policies, and to their employees that premium subsidies are available only on ACA exchanges. We also suggest strengthening Small Business Health Options Program exchanges by broadening the availability of subsidies and building partnerships with brokers. Finally, we recommend an expanded role for brokers and third‐party administrators in helping small firms improve their choice of health‐care insurance.     

Consumerism's sea change: how it will affect your company in the coming years

Consumerism and care management are the cost-containment strategies most employers say they will focus on over the next five years. This article reviews the growth of these strategies and the different ways employers have implemented them. The author then delineates the ten key ways that consumerism may affect companies over the next five- to ten-year time period, as these strategies continue to move health benefits toward greater transparency, flexibility and accountability.     

Information access: will make or break consumer-driven health plans

Consumer-driven health plans offer employers potentially significant cost savings. Yet such potential cannot be realized without greater consumer access to price, quality and treatment information. This article describes why consumer-based strategies have taken hold and how consumer-driven plan design and financial incentives are of only limited value in controlling costs. After reviewing the importance and availability of existing health care information, the authors suggest actions employers can take to ensure consumer-driven plans reach their potential.     

Retiree health care benefits: strategies for a changing workforce.

Demographic, economic and cultural trends foretell a dramatically different environment for retiree health care coverage. This article will focus on the redesign of retiree health benefits to meet the retirement objectives of employers and employees, anticipate changing demographics, and respond to changes in Medicare and other government initiatives, including the Consumer Bill of Rights. The material will discuss recent design trends, including managed care, and present results of a study the author co-authored for the Kaiser Family Foundation on changes in retiree health plans.     

Retiree medical--round 2

The second round of changes resulting from FAS 106 will be less dramatic than the first. But employers can anticipate that overall retiree health care costs will be reduced, averting the need to increase pensions or other retiree benefits. A fixed dollar benefit design will justify a lower accounting cost.     

Account-based plans curb costs and engage employees

A growing number of organizations are combining consumer-driven health plans with account-based approaches in order to limit health benefit costs, reinforce key consumerist messages and provide meaningful benefits to both actives and retirees. This article describes how account-based approaches work and can be used to motivate employees to invest in their health today and salt away funds for tomorrow. The author describes what employers can do to ensure that consumer-driven health plans and account-based approaches help employees accomplish their goals.     

Financing long-term care: employee needs and attitudes, and the employer's role.

Because of increasing life expectancies, high costs for nursing home and home health care, declining levels of informal family care, and the stated policy of the federal and state governments to foster self-reliance, individuals are increasingly exposed to the risk of financial ruin from long-term care (LTC) expenses. Yet, because of psychological barriers and aversions, particularly to thinking about residing in a nursing home, most individuals have not purchased LTC insurance. Hence, it may be the responsibility of employers to provide education to employees about LTC and to sponsor either individual or group plans of LTC insurance. Educational efforts may be particularly effective at the time of retirement when employees are in a more serious mood to consider the contingencies of retired life. A formal and perhaps more economical response for employers would be to offer combined life annuity and LTC insurance benefits through the retirement plan, provided certain regulatory and tax barriers can be removed.     

Communicating the need for additional savings in the face of retiree health benefit cutbacks.

In preparing for retirement, employees need to consider not only their pension benefits but also the challenge of financing their retirement health care needs. Various trends evolving in our society indicate that future retirees will be increasingly dependent on their own retirement savings. Evidence suggests that employees are not fully aware of the significance of health costs in retirement and must be educated to the need to save for retiree health care expenses. This article discusses the issues of Medicare reduction and retiree health benefit cutbacks and the relative communication and education challenges such issues pose to employers.     

Empowering the managed care consumer: not as easy as it sounds

Managed care remains one of the most highly publicized issues in employee benefits, with its accompanying controversy causing concern to the consumer and the employer. The authors of this article discuss the very basic things consumers of health benefits should know about their plans in order to be prepared, as well as what they should reasonably expect from employers that sponsor the plans.     

Redefining competition in health care

The U.S. health care system is in bad shape. Medical services are restricted or rationed, many patients receive poor care, and high rates of preventable medical error persist. There are wide and inexplicable differences in costs and quality among providers and across geographic areas. In well-functioning competitive markets--think computers, mobile communications, and banking--these outcomes would be inconceivable. In health care, these results are intolerable, with life and quality of life at stake. Competition in health care needs to change, say the authors. It currently operates at the wrong level. Payers, health plans, providers, physicians, and others in the system wrangle over the wrong things, in the wrong locations, and at the wrong times. System participants divide value instead of creating it. (And in some instances, they destroy it.) They shift costs onto one another, restrict access to care, stifle innovation, and hoard information--all without truly benefiting patients. This form of zero-sum competition must end, the authors argue, and must be replaced by competition at the level of preventing, diagnosing, and treating individual conditions and diseases. Among the authors' well-researched recommendations for reform: Standardized information about individual diseases and treatments should be collected and disseminated widely so patients can make informed choices about their care. Payers, providers, and health plans should establish transparent billing and pricing mechanisms to reduce cost shifting, confusion, pricing discrimination, and other inefficiencies in the system. And health care providers should be experts in certain conditions and treatments rather than try to be all things to all people. U.S. employers can also play a big role in reform by changing how they manage their health benefits.     

The consumer-driven approach: can it pick up where managed care left off?

Managed care has failed and health care costs are once again out of control. Given the current political, social and economic environment, there are now two options: a single-payer health care system, or an aggressive and global employer health benefits redesign that strongly encourages consumer-driven behavior. This article discusses the failure of managed care and ways that employers can promote consumer-driven behavior now using available tools and plan provisions.