Study: Obamacare Is Cheaper Than Employer-Backed Plans

A top consulting firm ran the numbers and found comparable health plans are 20 percent cheaper on the exchanges.

MIAMI, FL - DECEMBER 23: Certified Enrollment Specialist, Julienne Fontes, (R) helps Elva Garcia (L) and Jorge Codevila through the options available to them under the Affordable Care Act at a Miami Enrollment Assistance Center on December 23, 2013 in Miami, Florida. In a symbolic gesture ,U.S. President Obama signed up in the federal health care insurance. The goverment announced today that people will have a grace period exending into tomorow to enroll for a plan that would start January 1st. 
National Journal
Clara Ritger
Feb. 6, 2014, midnight

Health plans on Obama­care’s in­sur­ance ex­changes will on av­er­age cost less than em­ploy­er-sponsored cov­er­age, ac­cord­ing to a new re­port.

The low­est-priced plan in 2014 on the Af­ford­able Care Act’s ex­changes car­ries on av­er­age a premi­um that is 20 per­cent less than a com­par­able em­ploy­er-sponsored plan, ac­cord­ing to the re­port from the Health Re­search In­sti­tute at Price­wa­ter­house­Coopers.

The re­search­ers cal­cu­lated the total av­er­age costs of em­ploy­er-sponsored cov­er­age — both those paid by the em­ploy­ee and by the em­ploy­er. They then weighed those costs against the total av­er­age cost of low­est-price gold and plat­in­um plans on the ex­changes, be­fore sub­sidies.

Gold and plat­in­um plans typ­ic­ally carry high­er monthly premi­ums, with lower out-of-pock­et costs. The re­search­ers used those plans for their com­par­is­on be­cause they pay a sim­il­ar per­cent­age of health care costs com­pared with their em­ploy­er-sponsored coun­ter­parts. Gold and plat­in­um plans cov­er 80 per­cent and 90 per­cent re­spect­ively of a par­ti­cipant’s health care costs, while on av­er­age em­ploy­er-sponsored plans cov­er 85 per­cent of health costs.

For large firms, the ques­tion of cost com­par­is­on is aca­dem­ic: They are re­quired to provide their em­ploy­ees with health in­sur­ance or face a tax pen­alty.

For small firms — those with few­er than 50 em­ploy­ees — it’s a mat­ter of great­er con­sequence. They have the op­tion to not of­fer em­ploy­er-sponsored health in­sur­ance pen­alty free, in­stead leav­ing their em­ploy­ees to buy in­di­vidu­al plans on Obama­care’s ex­changes, pos­sibly with the help of fed­er­al sub­sidies. But if the busi­nesses do de­cide to of­fer cov­er­age, their em­ploy­ees are no longer eli­gible for fed­er­al sub­sidies.

“The plans we’re see­ing in the ex­changes are com­pet­it­ive in terms of the ser­vices they provide at the cost they’re list­ing,” said Ben Is­gur, dir­ect­or of the Health Re­search In­sti­tute.

The study com­pares the total cost of the plans, and does not dif­fer­en­ti­ate for wheth­er those costs are paid by an em­ploy­er, an em­ploy­ee or sub­sidies.

That lump-sum cal­cu­la­tion leaves it un­clear which plans — em­ploy­er-sponsored or ex­change-pur­chased — will cost cus­tom­ers the most, as it does not at­tempt to cal­cu­late what an in­di­vidu­al would re­ceive in sub­sidies or in em­ploy­er con­tri­bu­tions. Nor does it at­tempt to cal­cu­late how the health plans em­ploy­ers of­fer af­fect the wages they pay their work­ers.

But the total cost is im­port­ant, the re­search­ers say, be­cause it is what cus­tom­ers on the ex­changes watch most closely. Premi­um prices, in­sur­ance com­pan­ies say, are the most im­port­ant factor in a con­sumer’s health plan de­cision. Ac­cord­ing to a Price­wa­ter­house­Coopers re­port from last fall, 94 per­cent of in­surers be­lieved this, and cited it as the primary reas­on they began to con­tract with few­er doc­tors and hos­pit­als in an ef­fort to rein in costs.

So how are the in­surers of­fer­ing plans on the ex­changes keep­ing their costs down?

In part, the use of nar­row net­works, also known as high-per­form­ance health plans, al­lows in­sur­ance com­pan­ies to in­crease com­pet­i­tion among doc­tors and hos­pit­als by be­ing more se­lect­ive about with which com­pan­ies they in­clude in their cov­er­age.

Ceci Con­nolly, man­aging dir­ect­or of the Health Re­search In­sti­tute, said even em­ploy­ers are look­ing at nar­row­ing their net­works to lower costs.

“We an­ti­cip­ate that the pub­lic and private ex­changes are go­ing to con­tin­ue to foster great­er com­pet­i­tion and on­go­ing pres­sure to provide bet­ter value,” Con­nolly said. “Every­one’s go­ing to be able to look at what’s out there and avail­able on these ex­changes. I think em­ploy­ers will turn around and ask in­surers for sim­il­ar good value, when they com­pare plan of­fer­ings and see if they’re get­ting what they want for their money.”

Her con­ver­sa­tions with em­ploy­ers are backed up by data from the Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion which shows an up­ward trend in the use of nar­row net­works. While only 15 per­cent of em­ploy­er-sponsored health plans con­tained a high-value per­form­ance pro­vider in 2007, by 2013 that num­ber jumped to 23 per­cent.

Some pa­tients have ex­pressed frus­tra­tion with the trend, es­pe­cially when it means less ac­cess to ser­vices and the loss of a fam­ily doc­tor. But even in­sur­ance com­pan­ies could change their minds, Con­nolly said, if they start to see that it’s not a tradeoff con­sumers are will­ing to make for a lower price.

“I think we’re really go­ing to learn a lot about what con­sumers want now that they really have this op­por­tun­ity to choose from a lot of dif­fer­ent plans,” she said. “And ul­ti­mately com­pet­i­tion com­ing to health care is a good and healthy thing.”

Price­wa­ter­house­Coopers’ Health Re­search In­sti­tute is a non­par­tis­an health care con­sult­ing and data ana­lys­is group.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4711) }}

What We're Following See More »
BACKING OUT ON BERNIE
Trump Won’t Debate Sanders After All
3 days ago
THE LATEST

Trump, in a statement: “Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. ... I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”

AKNOWLEDGING THE INEVITABLE
UAW: Time to Unite Behind Hillary
4 days ago
THE DETAILS

"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.

Source:
AP KEEPING COUNT
Trump Clinches Enough Delegates for the Nomination
4 days ago
THE LATEST

"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."

Source:
TRUMP FLOATED IDEA ON JIMMY KIMMEL’S SHOW
Trump/Sanders Debate Before California Primary?
4 days ago
THE LATEST
CAMPAIGNS INJECTED NEW AD MONEY
California: It’s Not Over Yet
4 days ago
THE LATEST

"Clinton and Bernie Sanders "are now devoting additional money to television advertising. A day after Sanders announced a new ad buy of less than $2 million in the state, Clinton announced her own television campaign. Ads featuring actor Morgan Freeman as well as labor leader and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta will air beginning on Fridayin Fresno, Sacramento, and Los Angeles media markets. Some ads will also target Latino voters and Asian American voters. The total value of the buy is about six figures according to the Clinton campaign." Meanwhile, a new poll shows Sanders within the margin of error, trailing Clinton 44%-46%.

Source:
×