If Employers Walked Away From Health Coverage
Brian
Klepper, PhD, and David C. Kibbe, MD, MBA
Nov 24, 2010 - Kaiser Health News
What would happen if the rank and file of America's employers, financially
overwhelmed by the burden associated with sponsoring health coverage, suddenly
opted out?
It isn't so far-fetched. Enrollment by working age families in private health
coverage dropped
more than 10 percent over the last decade, as individuals and business were
priced out of the coverage market. Others, victims of the downturned economy,
have lost their jobs and access to subsidized coverage. Those who still have
coverage have narrower benefits with higher out-of-pocket costs than before.
In 2010, employers
transferred ALL health plan premium cost increases to employees. Employee
health costs rose 14 percent. Over the last five years, their costs have risen
47 percent, while wages have increased only 18 percent.
It may be reasonable to interpret this action as a line in the sand.
Employers, who typically provide about a $10,000 subsidy for family coverage,
are saying, "Enough. This is the limit of our financial commitment. More cost
will have to be passed on to someone else."
That someone else, of course, would be employees and his/her families, who,
on average, will make about $50,000 gross this year, and who are paying about
$4,000, or 8% of that income, for health coverage.
Employer frustration with being held hostage by America's health system has
been percolating for a long time. Various arguments -- both for and against --
recur in the debate over whether employers should sponsor health coverage. On
one hand, healthier employees are more productive, and comprehensive health
coverage is critical to recruiting and retaining better employers. But on the
other, health care's relentless cost inflation renders American businesses that
offer coverage less competitive than their domestic counterparts that don't.
Similarly, they are less competitive than international firms whose employees'
coverage costs significantly less.
With such a large financial stake in the process, most employers are
carefully watching the health reform battle and its potential implications.
Those could be very different, depending on which side prevails. Now that the
Republican Party has resurged in Congress, in large measure galvanized by a
"Repeal Reform" platform, let's imagine two scenarios.
In the first, Republicans, backed by a
health care industry daunted by the prospect of lower revenues if the health
law's cost control provisions remain intact, nullify those provisions. Freed
from constraints once again, excessive practice patterns continue unabated and
costs continue to soar.
With the economy still weak, employers withdraw even faster to escape the
higher costs. With government programs only capable of absorbing some new
participants, the number of uninsured people mushrooms. Safety net programs are
overwhelmed, and pressure on government to devise a new solution rapidly
intensifies.
In the second scenario, the Democrats hold fast. But in 2014, the health
insurance exchange provision kicks in, allowing businesses to drop coverage
sponsorship by paying a $2,000 per employee penalty, plus costs
related to current benefits expenditures. In a recent Wall
Street Journal op-ed, Tennessee Governor Philip Bredesen detailed an
analysis showing an immediate $146 million dollar yearly savings by transferring
coverage of core state employees to the exchanges. It seems an attractive
solution.
How many businesses would likely maintain coverage at $10,000 per employee if
they had, say, a $6,000 alternative? Many might, according to a recent survey by Mercer, the benefits consulting firm. But some
wouldn't. Those that make tremendous per employee profits, like financial
services, technology and pharmaceutical firms, may not drop coverage. Those with
occupational health exposures that give them reason to aggressively and directly
manage employee health might not. But for small businesses, which are less likely to offer coverage
anyway and typically struggle more with these costs, the health exchanges may be
an appealing option. With so many variables, it's hard to know. But in the face
of a weak economy and continued explosive health care cost growth, a mass
employer exodus is not outside the realm of possibility.
In round numbers, America now spends about $2.6 trillion annually on health
care. Commercial coverage comprises half ($1.3 trillion), with $300 billion paid
by individuals or families and $1 trillion by businesses. The question, then, is
how the reduction in business' health coverage subsidy -- $400 billion a year in
the example here -- would be replaced, and what might happen if it isn't.
In the current anti-tax political environment, it is difficult to imagine
Congress could compensate for the lost employer subsidy by raising taxes.
Business is unlikely to acquiesce to paying higher taxes commensurate with
whatever health care costs accrue.
And consider that a new dedicated tax of $400 billion per year would be an
astounding five times the bailout and economic stimulus that, earlier this year,
rightly or wrongly, raised the fury of the American people. Will we also be
willing to bail out the health care industry, because it is "too big to fail?"
Finding the dollars to keep the current health system and the industry afloat
would require a new national commitment of historic proportion, far greater than
the recent Wall Street bailout.
Either of these scenarios could result in massive public conflict and,
equally importantly, significantly diminished resources for the health care
sector. An inability to continue funding the industry's excesses would surely
burst the health care cost bubble, unleashing a cascade of harshly chaotic
consequences. Only then might we see a reform process that more rank and file
Americans might appreciate and embrace.
Brian Klepper and David
Kibbe write together about health care market dynamics, economics and
technology.
© 2010 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights
reserved.