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 »
GOP Budget Chiefs Won’t Invite Administration to Testify
1 days ago

The administration will release its 2017 budget blueprint tomorrow, but the House and Senate budget committees won’t be inviting anyone from the White House to come talk about it. “The chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees released a joint statement saying it simply wasn’t worth their time” to hear from OMB Director Shaun Donovan. Accusing the members of pulling a “Donald Trump,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the move “raises some questions about how confident they are about the kinds of arguments that they could make.”

Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
1 days ago

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
1 days ago

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
12 hours ago

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.