2005 HSA-eligible Health Insurance Plan Costs Dropped in Sharp Contrast with Rising Overall Health Insurance Premiums

In an amazing show of consumer strength and confidence, 2005 HSA-eligible health insurance plan costs dropped in sharp contrast with rising overall health insurance premiums according to a qualified eHealthInsurance press release (below), extracted from its in-depth HSA annual report. With the plethora of healthcare ideologies and legistlation in current circulation, none seem to be registering as highly on the health insurance consumer confidence scale as health savings account plans.

Increased attention given to HSA legistlation, if Congress will ever detour from petty political squabbling and center itself on healthcare issues that seem to matter most to the American healthcare consumer, would go a long way to stemming the tide of runaway healthcare inflation and the critically rising numbers of the uninsured that are plaguing America.

Forty-one percent of HSA-eligible plan buyers in the eHealthInsurance study reported being previously uninsured. Among purchasers, the age groups that had the highest percentage of previously uninsured were children and young adults up to age 29.

Also, do you know of a health insurance plan that covers the cost of aspirin, just one of the many approved health savings account expenditures available to HSA plan holders? Just where do our traditional health insurance premium dollars go, you know, the ones that don't roll over yearly as HSA plan dollars do? Certainly not toward aspirin, cough syrup and the like. No wonder these consumer-driven health insurance plans have skyrocketted in popularity and confidence over recent years.
globalEyeNews.eXtra.health insurance




Press Release: eHealthInsurance™

Individuals and families pay significantly less for HSA-eligible health insurance plans in 2005



MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., May 10, 2006 - Individuals paid 17 percent less for HSA-eligible health insurance plans purchased through eHealthInsurance in 2005 than consumers who bought similar plans in 2004. On average, individual consumers paid $114 in 2005 versus $138 in 2004. This is significant when compared to the near double-digit increases in health insurance premiums reported by other organizations over the past several years.[1] This and other data on HSA adoption in 2005 was released today in a semi-annual report by eHealthInsurance, the nation’s leading online source of health insurance for individuals, families and small businesses.

The improved affordability of HSA-eligible plans may be the key factor leading uninsured Americans to HSAs. Forty-one percent of purchasers of HSA-eligible plans in the study reported being previously uninsured. The age groups that had the highest percentage of uninsured before purchasing an HSA-eligible plan are children and young adults up to age 29.

“Since their introduction in 2004, HSAs have been one of the fastest growing products in the consumer directed health care category, giving Americans more affordable health insurance plans and greater control of their health care dollars,” says Gary Lauer, CEO of eHealthInsurance. “Our data verifies that HSAs are attractive to individuals and families who did not previously have health insurance. It is our goal to continue to provide transparency and choice in....More

Inside: Stateline.org - U.S. Insurance Bill Upsets States


globalEyeNews.Op-Ed.health insurance
When it comes to health insurance in America there seems to be an uncurable political obsession with the total absense of logic. Also, what's good for the goose doesn't seem apply to the gander, either.

The so-called 'Enzi Bill' which is being hotly contested in the Senate and by consumer groups across America, endeavors to allow small businesses to drink from the same priviledged health insurance waters that large companies have enjoyed through self-insured programs since the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) became federal law in 1974.

Since 1974 large companies through ERISA have been able to self-insure without having to comply with tedious state imposed regulations. This glorious amnesty has enabled large companies to sidestep state regulations in order to offer comprehensive health insurance packages to their employees at substantially more economical rates; in effect, bargain-hunt across state lines.

Since then, though, there have been some 'ringers', some of the more exemplary health insurance products around have been minted through these offerings. What the 'Enzi Bill' proposes to do is to empower trade and professional "associations" with the same priviledges, under ERISA jurisdiction, in order to to craft the most cost-effective health insurance plans possible for their members and, even more importantly, enable them to engage plans without the cost-prohibitive administrative nightmare of having to deal with the gnarling complexities of 50 unique sets of state mandated regulations.

As with large company self-insure deployments, the Department of Labor, a staunch supporter of AHP legistlation, would be the master keyholder to any such healthcare initiatives. Here's what the (DOL) has to say about AHP's:

"In a voluntary health benefits system, how can small employers be encouraged to offer coverage? The challenge is to create incentives and remove barriers. Preemption of 50 state insurance regulatory regimes under federal ERISA law has allowed large employers and unions to provide cost-effective health benefits. A federal structure for small employers would bring stability, uniformity and lower costs for health care coverage."

"AHPs will provide small businesses the opportunity to band together through trade and professional associations to purchase affordable health benefits. By joining together, small employers will enjoy greater bargaining power, economies of scale, and administrative efficiencies. In this way, AHPs will level the playing field and give participating small employers the same advantages as larger employers and employers who provide benefits through Taft-Hartley plans (plans sponsored jointly by a union and two or more employers)."

"The lack of health insurance in America disproportionately affects workers in small businesses. About half of all uninsured Americans are in families headed by workers who are self-employed or who work at firms with fewer than 100 employees. Workers at the smallest firms are far less likely to be covered on the job, and far more likely to be without insurance from any source."

"Among private-sector firms with fewer than 100 employees, health benefits wer offered at just 49% of work sites in 2000, compared with 98% among larger firms."

"Considering only low-wage work sites, where at least half of the employees earned less than $9.50 per hour, the disparity between small and large firms is even greater. Benefits were offered at just 34% of small firm low-wage work sites, compared with 95% of large firms."

"Among 600 small businesses responding to a recent survey, less than one-third currently offer insurance, but about three-fourths said they would be 'very' or 'somewhat likely' to participate in an AHP that offered lower prices, more choices, or less paperwork."

As far as regulatory devices that would govern AHP entities, rigid ERISA compliance doctrine, alot of which is already in place, would enforce consumer protection safeguards through DOL.

According to the DOL, all AHP entry requirements would be determined by qualified actuary and in the event an AHP became unable to satisfy its financial obligations, "DOL could assume trusteeship over the AHP and pay premiums to a stop-loss and/or indemnification insurer to ensure that consumers’ outstanding claims for health benefits are paid."

According to the DOL release, attempts at "cherry-picking" that would sculpt plans that benefit only healthy people or "make it easier for insurers to target their coverage to businesses with healthier workers (Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.)", would be fruitless in that, among an arsenal of pre-emptive barriers:

Only bona fide associations that are in existence for three years for purposes other than providing health insurance would be eligible to sponsor an AHP.

The legislation makes clear that AHPs will have to comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), prohibiting group health plans from excluding high-risk individuals or employers with high claims experience.

It's time cut the bull and all the political inuendo that continues to sicken America. Considereing the self- insured sector appears to have been the least affected by the healthcare crisis that is crippling the American family and workplace, it would seem that common sense insists that a closer look be taken at the model.

If the possiblity does exist that AHP legistlation would destroy state-fought health insurance standards, how is it that few of its critics can be more specific than soundbites and generalizations that attempt to engender paranoia in the masses?

How is it that in such media dissertations on jeapordy and demise, there hasn't been a telling roll call of large self-insured ERISA/DOL sanctioned villains that would demonstrate the point?

That kind of blank political inuendo is called wanting to have your bread buttered on both sides.

You can obtain a free copy of the DOL/AHP Report, ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS - IMPROVING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES , here.







Stateline.org: Top Story

U.S. insurance Bill Upsets States
By Daniel C. Vock, Stateline.org Staff Writer

Thursday, April 27, 2006

A proposal before the U.S. Senate designed to help small businesses buy cheaper health insurance has many state officials up in arms because it could strip states of their power to regulate carriers and dictate what insurers must cover.

At least 39 state attorneys general, three governors and 16 state insurance regulators object to the legislation.

“This bill contains provisions that will erode state oversight of health insurance plans and eliminate consumer protections in the areas of mandated benefits and internal grievance procedures,” 39 members of the National Association of Attorneys General said in a letter to U.S. senators.

The controversial measure would let trade associations buy coverage from insurance companies and offer it to members and their employees nationwide, even if the plans didn’t comply with individual state laws.

The legislation would let existing small business plans avoid state regulations too, in order to make sure new plans don’t have an unfair advantage.

Business leaders argue that insurance companies are loathe to offer nationwide products today, because products they offer must comply with at least 50 different sets of laws.

They point to the experience of the Associated Builders and Contractors, which shut down its 43-year-old health insurance plan after its insurance company quit and more than 50 others declined to take its place.

Carriers said they were unwilling to assume the business because state laws they would have to obey dictated how they could set rates, who must be eligible and what services they must provide.

“We were legislated out of business, effectively, by the states,” Joseph E. Rossman, ABC’s vice-president of fringe benefits, said

The so-called Enzi Bill, named after U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, grows out of an effort to help small-business groups such as ABC offer members the
chance....More

Inside: Congressional Testimony on The Healthcare Choice Act, H.R. 2335


What a mess. No wonder healthcare coverage in America is unraveling. In the recent New York Times article, Death by Insurance (subscription), Paul Krugman references comments (Wall Street Journal) from a doctor concerning 'the excess expenses he incurs trying to deal with 301 different private insurance plans. According to Dr. Brewer, he currently employs two full-time staff members for billing, and his two secretaries spend half their time collecting insurance information.' The sum of it: too much information results in no information. So it goes with the American healthcare consumer; plagued with the same. When you have 50 states, with 50 independent state controls, 50 different sets of mandates, 50 distinctly separate licensing and coverage requirements, all doing insurance business within the insulation of the 'no-compete' clause, the too much/no information syndrome mightily kicks in.

Is there a health insurance Expert in America? Information we can trust? Or is the business so tragically fragmented nationally that no one really knows for sure about anything? Is that why there are so many cockamamy viewpoints concerning America's healthcare sickness and its cure? Is it a terminal case of too much information results in no information?

Are the states that license standard non-employer-based family policies for four at $171 per month (table below) stupid or indifferent toward the healthcare needs of their residents? Or, are those of us that live in states that up the ante to over $700 per month for the same, luxuriating in the safe harbor of a smarter and more concerned state leadership?

Oh, yes, the issues are complex. Why would healthy New Jersey residents be allowed to purchase more cost-effective policies licenced in the state of California, when the State of New Jersey and its licencees would be stuck with the sicker ones who are left behind? Do we need that kind of protection from the "evil" health insurance companies? But tell us, if your business agenda mandates restrictions to certain consumers for purchasing in a way that you believe disadvantages others, are your offerings valid and legal? Could be, what you have is a felonious recipe for failure, millions uninsured and a healthcare system ready to hit the wall.
[globalEyeNews.eXtra.healthinsurance]





Subject:

Congressional Testimony on The Healthcare Choice Act, H.R. 2335


Extract:

Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committe on Energy and Commerce:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION on H.R. 2335

JUNE 28, 2005

Serial No. 109-23

Testimony:

David Gratzer, M.D., Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research


STATEMENT OF DAVID GRATZER

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee-- subcommittee. I am honored to testify today in these hearings on “The Health Care Choice Act” before the Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Health. My name is David Gratzer. I am a physician and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York. I’m speaking today in support of Congressman Shadegg’s efforts. The views I present are my own and do not necessarily represent those of the Manhattan Institute.

As you may know, insurance premiums vary greatly from state to state. eHealthInsurance, a leading online insurance brokerage, recently compared the cost of a standard family insurance policy ($2,000 deductible with a 20% co-insurance) across the nation’s 50 largest cities, involving some 4,000 insurance plans and 140 insurance companies. The results are startling. Consider: a non-employer-based family policy for four in Kansas City, Mo., costs about $170 per month while similar coverage in Boston tops more than $750 a month. (Please see the accompanying table, which further illustrates the range.)

Why the price difference? Many states dictate the type of services and providers. New York, for instance, requires that the services of a podiatrist be covered. It’s a commonly quoted statistic that the average person walks about 150,000 miles in a lifetime. Let’s hope the majority of this journey is on healthy, bunion-free feet. But should every insurance policy in the Empire State really be required to include podiatric services? Acupuncturists are mandated in 11 states, massage therapists in 4, osteopaths in 24, and chiropractors in 47, driving up the price of even the most basic insurance plans.

Some states have gone further. Laws force insurers to sell to any applicant (guaranteed issue) and at the same price, regardless of age or health (community rating). Faced with higher premiums for insurance they seldom use, the young and healthy drop their coverage, leaving an insurance pool of older, sicker people - and even higher premiums. After a decade of such political meddling, the average monthly cost of a family policy in New Jersey bests the monthly lease of a Ferrari. In such an environment, many insurance carriers choose not to do business; in Vermont, for example, just three companies sell to......More>>

"Forging new revenue payloads (taxes) to prop up an already overfunded, price-bloated, bankrupt and failing healthcare system that will continue to hold the American healthcare consumer and health insurance providers hostage is the "ideology of insanity". -globalEyeNews

[The healthcare ideology wars continue in Washington. New HSA (Health Savings Account) legistlation S.2549, the Health Savings Account Affordability Act, would allow individuals to use their account funds to purchase high-deductible health insurance. This would expand current law which allows HSA account funds to pay for out-of-pocket expenses, but excludes their use for the purchase of insurance. According to DeMint, the improvement "would allow small business owners across the nation to provide tax-free contributions that could be then used by their employees to purchase health insurance that is affordable, flexible, and portable. Many workers would pay nothing but they would own everything.” DeMint also speaks out against Bill S.637, the Small Employers Health Benefits Program Act, a proposal sponsored by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), in which small businesses could pool together as part of a government-run health care program to offer health coverage to their employees. According to DeMint, "once the government takes over the management of health care for millions of Americans, liberals in Congress will begin rationing care with one-size-fits-all mandates that limit choices." Ideology, though intriguing to intellectual appetite, is not the real issue when it comes to configuring a whole new health insurance model. Economics is. The price of healthcare in America is spiraling out of control, beyond containment. Any new model must address this primal issue by providing economic mechanisms that drive prices downward. Forging new revenue payloads (taxes) to prop up an already overfunded, price-bloated, bankrupt and failing healthcare system that will continue to hold the American healthcare consumer and health insurance providers hostage is the "ideology of insanity".]
globalEyeNews.tip.health insurance


Press Release: United States Senator - Jim DeMint:

DeMint Testifies Before Senate Finance Committee on Small Business Health Care

Calls for Legislation to Make HSAs More Affordable and to Allow Consumers to Shop for Insurance Across State Lines


April 6th, 2006 - WASHINGTON, D.C - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) testified before the Senate Committee on Finance on ways to improve health coverage for millions of small business employees. Specifically, DeMint called on the committee to consider legislation allowing workers to use tax-free HSA contributions to help pay premiums for affordable, high-deductible health insurance. DeMint also rejected the idea of a new government-run health care program and encouraged senators to support a proposal allowing Americans to access affordable health coverage in other states.

“If we want to help millions of small business employees access affordable health insurance, we are going to have to make a small but important change to the law regulating health savings accounts,” said Senator DeMint. “Americans who want to access HSA benefits should be allowed to use their account funds to purchase high-deductible health insurance. Under current law, they can use their account funds to pay for out-of-pocket expenses, but they are banned from using them to buy insurance. This improvement would allow small business owners across the nation to provide tax-free contributions that could be then used by their employees to purchase health insurance that is affordable, flexible, and portable. Many workers would pay nothing but they would own everything.”

Besides empowering small businesses with the ability to offer a tax-free cash health care benefit without the paperwork and liability burdens associated with traditional employer-sponsored health coverage, S.2549, the Health Savings Account Affordability Act would also give individuals who purchase HSAs on their own virtually the same tax benefits as those with employer-sponsored insurance. This would help self-employed, unemployed, and workers for companies that do not currently offer insurance. Americans who are not working, especially early retirees, could pay premium for the purchase of non-group HSA plans tax-free from an HSA account.

“It’s time to level the playing field between those who get health coverage through their employer and those who do not,” said Senator DeMint. “By allowing HSA contributions to be used to pay for qualified health insurance, we can instantly help millions of Americans without employer-sponsored insurance access affordable coverage that the IRS tax code currently puts out of reach.”

Senator DeMint rejected the idea of making millions of small business employees dependent on the federal government for their health care. According to S.637, the Small Employers Health Benefits Program Act, a proposal sponsored by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), small businesses could pool together as part of a government-run health care program to offer health coverage to their employees. The program, which is estimated to cost $73 billion over the next 10 years, would be paid for by American taxpayers through.......More>>>

"The facts are these: the health insurance Cash Cow Has Expired; the vast $niche pool is fast becoming the "Dead Pool"; the American healthcare consumers' pockets are empty, no longer able or willing to sustain the runaway-inflated healthcare costs and health insurance premiums that have resulted from years of network-wide gravy train riding......"

While millions go without health insurance (an everyday occurrence exploding into almost every income sector) and a major healthcare breakdown looms, the point that eludes most is that the crisis exists soley because network medical providers, across the board, have out-priced the market. In a mad effort to get an always bigger piece of the vast consumer $niche pool (pie), network costs have exploded beyond containment, beyond anyone's ability to pay. Universal (National) healthcare is just another name for a federal government bailout of the industry for the shortfall. For those who promulgate that overuse has lead to runaway costs, I'd say try living in the real life world of an overworked, overtaxed, overburdened, over child-cared, life-compressed middle income household of 3 or more for a few hours (Former Secretary of State, George P. Shultz).........

globalEyeNews.eXtra.health insurance
'Without reform, the U.S. health care system will hit the proverbial brick wall in the not-too-distant future. Health care costs and insurance premiums are rapidly increasing, making both insured and uninsured consumers worse off. After not wanting to touch health care reform with a 10-foot pole in the immediate post-Clinton era, policymakers are again confronting the fact that change is desperately needed. The direction of that change, however, is anything but settled. Does the solution lie in private markets, greater government involvement, or some combination of the two?" This New England Journal of Medicine extract from the Cato Institute publication Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free aptly describes prevalent healthcare moods and trends in America. Indecision, apprehension, unclearness; bemused can be applied. In the news release below you will find why some experts believe open-market reform is a "blueprint for re-invigorating America's troubled health care sector."

............The facts are these: the health insurance Cash Cow Has Expired; the vast $niche pool is fast becoming the "Dead Pool"; the American healthcare consumers' pockets are empty, no longer able or willing to sustain the runaway-inflated healthcare costs and health insurance premiums that have resulted from years of network-wide gravy train riding; and both, healthcare consumers and providers, don't know where to turn for the next dollar. The trends are ominous. The healthcare industry at the top of the food chain, at the least, is unnerved and the American healthcare consumer is reeling. As with every hyper-inflationary market, the bubble will burst eventually (more than likely). The sad, disgraceful truth is, solemn oaths have been broken, trusts abused and the vital well-being of the American people has been feloniously compromised. The fix? The system may well have passed the point of no return; open-market reform, a moot point. Whether the case or not, a head on confrontaion with the issues at hand will require high doses of "inspired leadership" from Washington. Too much to hope for?
[globalEyeNews.opinion.health insurance] "

The Cato Institute: News Release

Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It

September 14, 2005

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

Healthy Competition, a new book published today by the Cato Institute, provides a blueprint for re-invigorating America's troubled health care sector. Former Secretary of State George Shultz calls Healthy Competition "essential reading."

Michael F. Cannon, Cato's director of health policy studies, and Michael D. Tanner, Cato's director of health and welfare studies, explain how market competition makes products of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of consumers.

They demonstrate how market competition can do the same for medical care and health insurance. The authors even show how encouraging competition.....More>>