Archive for February, 2010
Americans pay more than one and a half trillion dollars for medical care each year and costs related to all manner of health care, such as prescription drugs, continue to skyrocket. While some of reasons behind this booming bill are understandable, Americans caught in a cash crunch might be surprised to find out some of the lesser-known causes of high health care costs.
The words health care might invoke images of doctors, nurses and hospitals, but the reality is that the medical field is a business and a ruthless one at that. Individual practitioners, researchers and participants may have wonderful intentions and a true desire to help people, but the structure of the American health care system ensures profit is the number one issue of importance.
Here are some facts that may help explain the high costs of American health care:
Pharmaceutical research and development companies spend roughly $20 billion each year on R&D, and about the same amount on advertising and self-promotional marketing activities.
There is sure to be a grin on your face once you get to read this article on health insurance. This is because you are sure to realize that all this matter is so obvious, you wonder how come you never got to know about it!
Additionally, drug companies have as many sales people as there are doctors in the United States. One of the responsibilities of this sales force is to convince doctors to attend pharmaceutical company-sponsored seminars where drugs are showcased.
According to some economists, the purchase of new technology is responsible for more than 50 percent of new health care spending over the last three years.
Much of the money Americans pay for health care finds its way into the rising profits on health care-related products and services such as the provision of medical insurance. Even higher costs have been forecasted for the future, especially for prescription drugs.
For many Americans who are unable to afford the health care they need, rising costs represent an ever-increasing barrier to medical services and products. The financial burden is also felt on the larger national scale with about 15 percent of gross domestic product going toward health care costs. That is equal to about one quarter of the annual federal budget.
Comparatively, Canada invests around 10 percent of its GDP on its public health care program. Unlike the United States, Canada’s health care program is universally available to all citizens and permanent residents without cost. Other countries, such as Germany, where there is a public/private delivery system model for health care, manage to serve their populations for even less while still having better longevity than Americans. This proves that the quality of health care does not rise proportionally with the amount of money spent to attain it.
While many Canadians supplement their universal health care with added insurance to cover the cost of medication and perks such as semi-private or private hospital rooms, health care insurance is much more essential in the United States. Unfortunately, costs have been rising dramatically, making health care insurance out of reach for many Americans. Currently, more than forty million Americans do not receive any kind of health care benefit.
Developing a vision on health insurance, we saw the need of providing some enlightenment in health insurance for others to learn more about health insurance.
For employers, providing health care insurance for employees is also becoming more expensive, with increases dramatically outpacing inflation rates. Some years, the difference is four or six fold. Even if premiums were to remain static, offering health care insurance to employees still costs several thousand dollars per worker. For smaller companies, or for those who employ a large number of people, these costs can be prohibitive.
Measures to reduce health care costs are always under consideration, though many are not popular choices. Suggestions that have been put forward by various sources have included:
Increased drug awareness and education. Millions could be saved if health care insurance covered only generic versions of drugs that have been proven just as effective as their more expensive brand name counterparts.
Terminate expensive treatment options will only add a short amount of time to a patient’s life, particularly if it will not be quality time (i.e. patient is in a coma).
Promote preventative care such as smart lifestyle choices, proper nutrition and exercise.
Examine to ways to control drug advertising to consumers. There is speculation that advertising has led to prescriptions of non-necessary drugs.
Limit malpractice liability so doctors and medical professionals do not feel pressured to cover themselves by ordering unnecessary tests to substantiate conditions they already know to be present.
Iowa is one of only six states to offer the option of free health insurance to state government employees and their families. And the state’s cost to provide health insurance has increased more than 300 percent — $176 million — in 10 years, a Des Moines Register analysis shows.
Iowa’s state employees also pay substantially lower out-of-pocket health insurance costs, such as deductibles and office co-payments, than private-sector workers, according to an independent study of nearly 900 businesses and government employers conducted this year by David P. Lind & Associates of Clive.
Government employees at all levels in Iowa, including those working for schools and local governments, pay maximum out-of-pocket costs that are about half the amount paid by workers in private businesses, Lind’s survey found. That represents a possible annual savings of $1,000 or more for each employee.
The combination of higher benefit costs and lower state revenue has prompted calls for change.
Rep. Scott Raecker of Urbandale, the top-ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, has proposed that state employees contribute $50 a month for health care premiums.
As of July 1, 84 percent of the 28,522 state employees enrolled in health insurance through their jobs participated in plans for which they paid no premiums, according to the Iowa Department of Management. That number includes employees in all branches of state government.
The five other states that offer at least some of their employees no-premium health insurance are Arkansas, Delaware, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Oregon.
Iowa offers employees a variety of insurance plans. Generally, the 16 percent of state employees who pay part of their premium costs have chosen more comprehensive insurance, which covers more medical conditions, such as chronic illnesses, or pays a greater percentage of total claims.
“We ask indigent Iowans and those living under the poverty level to contribute up to $40 a month for their state-sponsored health plan, yet, in many cases, do not ask state employees to contribute anything,” Raecker said. “It’s not an easy thing to do, but I think most Iowans would appreciate the fact that state employees would contribute to their health care plan.”
The proposal is unlikely to go anywhere in the coming legislative session. Democrats occupy the governor’s office and hold majorities in both the Iowa House and Senate.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, called Republicans’ push to cut state employee benefits “a turkey.”
Benefits were negotiated with unions in legally binding contracts, and cutting them would be unfair, McCarthy said.
He agreed that medical costs are “out of control,” but said the issue needs to be resolved through national reform.
Several other states are looking at how to rein in health insurance costs.
Officials in Alabama, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine and Nevada are considering increasing employees’ share of premiums and co-payments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. At least 11 states are considering trimming coverage.
Requiring employees to pay partial premiums would not only help offset the government’s costs but also help them gain awareness of health costs, which ultimately would help hold down rates, said Fred Buie, president of Keystone Electrical Manufacturing Co. in Des Moines.
Keystone, which has 60 full-time employees, has kept health insurance costs level in the past four years largely by setting up health reimbursement accounts, which reimburse employees for some medical expenses. The accounts come with a tax advantage that helps offset costs for Keystone.
Keystone employees pay an average of about 18 percent of health care costs through monthly premiums.
“I don’t know of any private business where employees don’t pay premiums,” Buie said. “If you’re contributing, you appreciate it more and tend to make better use of it.”
Union officials who represent state workers have long argued that good benefits are part of a trade-off state employees make for accepting lower pay.
That depends on state workers’ education levels, according to a review of salary data conducted for the Register by Iowa State University economist David Swenson.
Highly educated state workers, on average, do make less than those in the private sector, by $15,000 or more a year, Swenson found. But state workers as a group make nearly $5,400 more a year on average in base salary and receive $4,700 more in benefits than their private-sector counterparts.
Danny Homan, president of AFSCME’s Local 61, contended last month that the salary and benefits information obtained by the Register is “either a lie or miscalculated.”
The Register, in response, shared much of its data with Homan and spokesman Charlie Wishman and requested they provide information or studies that dispute the newspaper’s findings. They declined to do so, although Wishman, in an e-mail, questioned Lind’s methodology because it did not break out education levels.
Lind’s study focused upon health insurance costs, which, unlike salaries, do not correlate closely with education levels. Lind said the survey has an accuracy rate of plus or minus 3.3 percent.
Union officials say members have accepted smaller raises in recent years to help preserve good benefits. Across-the-board wage increases have been 3 percent or less for the past 10 years, with no raises in 2006 and the current fiscal year. Some employees are eligible each year for step increases beyond the across-the-board raise.
Susan Shields, a pharmacist with the state’s corrections department, falls in the category of highly educated state workers who are paid less than private-sector counterparts. Eleven years ago, she left a pharmacist job with a large retailer to join the state work force. Last year, her pay remained roughly $4,000 less than that of the average pharmacist in Iowa.
Shields said she was working nearly 80 hours a week in the private sector and now works closer to a normal workweek. While pay is less with the state, the benefits are better, she acknowledged.
“I don’t think of myself as being any better off or worse off (than) most pharmacists,” Shields said. “No, I don’t make the same amount of money as someone who works for a big-box retail chain. They make a lot of money, but they also work a lot of hours and have a lot of stress. I’ve been there. It’s not worth the money.”
The state has taken steps in recent years to rein in its increased costs for employee health benefits. Those efforts have created tension.
Beginning in January of this year, for example, Iowa eliminated United HealthCare as a health insurance option for state employees, a move estimated to save $10.8 million this year, according to a memo sent in September to state officials by Ed Holland, division administrator for the Iowa Department of Administrative Services.
Iowa’s five-member Executive Council, headed by Gov. Chet Culver, made the decision. Opponents, including members of his own party, said thousands of workers would have to choose among plans that offer less flexibility, particularly to see specialists in other states. They also cast doubt on the savings.
Holland said last week that the decision has led to few problems to date.
The state also expanded education on wellness and prevention, which officials think will help lower long-term costs.
State leaders, including Culver, have also set up a working group of unions and government representatives to identify ways to reduce health care costs. The next time union contracts are up for negotiations is 2011.
The negotiation process that leads to union agreements on salaries and benefits is conducted almost entirely in private. Typically, the governor, a handful of other state employees and union representatives participate. Although authorities make final union agreements public, union leaders, state negotiators and lawmakers usually do not discuss how negotiators arrived at the agreements.
The Department of Administrative Services denied a request for an interview with any employee of that department involved in the collective bargaining process.
Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said the negotiation process takes much of the decision-making about employee benefit costs out of the hands of lawmakers.
Questioned about the premium-free health insurance offered to state employees, Gronstal said: “I don’t want to characterize it as good or bad because that is unfairly biasing the collective bargaining process. This is a job for the executive branch to negotiate with the employee unions, and I am not going to jawbone the unions down or state government up in this equation. I think it’s inappropriate for us to comment on subjects relative to collective bargaining.”
Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley said the union negotiation process should be more transparent to allow more citizen input as negotiating takes place.
“One of the things we know is that the total compensation package of state employees has exceeded that of private employees, and it has gotten to the point where we’re seeing billion-dollar deficits,” McKinley said. “The bargaining process just isn’t working to protect the taxpayers.”
If a governor wanted to require employees to pay part of insurance premiums or take other steps to control costs, such changes are often years in the making, said Richard Cauch, health program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
“Changes for public employees generally move at a slower pace,” Cauch said, noting the complex union agreements that bind most states. “It’s unlike the private sector, where a company can announce, ‘In 60 days, here’s what we’re doing to you.’”
There are a lot of details to consider when you are choosing a health care plan, whether it’s one offered through your employer or one you buy on your own. No matter what age you are, your health should be a primary concern, although young people often act as if they will live forever and sometimes postpone making health care decisions.
Here is a list of common mistakes that people make all the time when choosing a health care plan. They are in no particular order, and all are important to consider, carefully and completely. If you are not conversant with all the terminology or are finding it difficult to make the decisions, you should ask for help from a neutral third-party such as family member or friend. Don’t ask a health insurance company unless you want to hear a sales pitch!
Common mistakes
- You don’t check out your doctor, or any others – Although some healthcare plans require you to use a physician in their own network, other plans are more inviting. If you already have a physician, and are buying your own insurance, check with the doctor to see what plans he is a member of. If you do have to choose a new doctor, you should look into the health plan doctors’ credentials by contacting the AMA.
- You forget “location, location, location” – The location of your doctor or clinic, and the travel time required, are other factors you should consider when considering health care plans. Find out where the doctor is located and also look into the regular and emergency hours of the facility.
- You don’t consider specialists – If you already need specialist care, or think you may need to in the future, you need to know the health care plan’s procedures on using them. Some plans require you to contact a primary care physician, while others allow you to make specialist appointments directly.
- You don’t consider your own specialist – You should definitely find out if your current specialist is in the health care plan you are considering. If not, perhaps your specialist can refer you to one who is.
- You forget to check the policy on “pre-existing conditions” – Even though this should be a “no-brainer,” people forget to ask about the policies on pre-existing conditions. Coverage for pre-existing conditions varies widely among health plans. Some exclude them entirely, and will not even consider coverage, while others cover them fully. Many health care plans fall somewhere in the middle, offering coverage after a certain amount of time, or for a certain amount of time or expense. Rules promulgated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act guarantees you coverage for your pre-existing conditions if you join a new group plan offered by your employer after being insured the previous year. Do your research to make sure you know what your policy covers.
Less common oversights
- You don’t ask about physicals and health screenings – Again, it seems an obvious thing to ask, but if you appreciate getting regular physicals and health screenings you should ensure that they are covered. Most “managed care” plans do cover these types of procedures, usually on an annual basis, but there are some plans that do not cover them. If you have children, make sure to ask if “well baby” check-ups, physicals and immunizations are covered.
- You forget about additional services – Everything, from prescription drug coverage to mental health care, is an important consideration. You need to consider which of the various additional services that you may need are, in fact, covered when you are comparing health care plans. Other examples of these additional services that may be important to you are drug and alcohol counseling and treatment, home health care, nursing home or extended care, hospices, experimental treatments, alternative and complementary medicine, chiropractic care and physical therapy.
Bottom line considerations
- You don’t price things out correctly – Once you know what you want in your health care plan you need to compare costs, and you need to do it right, which means covering all the bases. You will need to know exactly what deductibles must be paid first before the health care plan coverage starts paying, and don’t forget to ask if the deductible needs to be met before certain services can be utilized. Find out about “out of network” charges if you anticipate having to go beyond your plan facilities or physicians. Finally, there are co-payment, cap amounts and total-care limits you need to know about. Some plans have lifetime limits, some have lifetime and annual limits, and others have mixed formulas for making this determination. Get all the facts.
- You don’t check the exclusions – If you don’t read the exclusions list, you will not know what is not covered. You need to see if any condition you currently have, or that you expect to contract in the future, is included. This is an important bottom-line consideration since, if you don’t get this settled and dealt with up front, you will likely spend a great deal of money down the line to treat excluded conditions.
It is a difficult thing to look at your health in a dispassionate, dollar-oriented way, but that’s life. As we age, more of our energy goes into thinking and planning against death and disability, but the subject need not be morbid or depressing. Do your best to get a health care plan that covers what your particular needs are, and remind yourself that you are worth the trouble – and the expense.