State contraceptive coverage laws: creative responses to questions of "conscience"

The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) guaranteed contraceptive coverage for employees of the federal government. However, opponents of the FEHBP contraceptive coverage questioned the viability of the conscience clause. Supporters of the contraceptive coverage pressed for the narrowest exemption, one that only permit religious plans that clearly states religious objection to contraception. There are six of the nine states that have enacted contraceptive coverage laws aimed at the private sector. The statutes included a provision of conscience clause. The private sector disagrees to the plan since almost all of the employees? work for employers who only offer one plan. The scope of exemption for employers was an issue in five states that have enacted the contraceptive coverage. In Hawaii and California, it was exemplified that if employers are exempted from the contraceptive coverage based on religious grounds, an employee will be entitled to purchase coverage directly from the plan. There are still questions on how an insurer, who objects based on religious grounds to a plan with contraceptive coverage, can function in a marketplace where such coverage is provided by most private sector employers.     

Payers test reference pricing and centers of excellence to steer patients to low-price and high-quality providers

Hospitals frequently exhibit wide variation in their prices, and employers and insurers are now experimenting with the use of incentives to encourage employees to make price-conscious choices. This article examines two major new benefit design instruments being tested. In reference pricing, an employer or insurer makes a defined contribution toward covering the cost of a particular service and the patient pays the remainder. Through centers of excellence, employers or insurers limit coverage or strongly encourage patients to use particular hospitals for such procedures as orthopedic joint replacement, interventional cardiology, and cardiac surgery. We compare these two types of benefit designs with respect to consumer choice and how they balance price and quality. The article then examines their potential role in the policy debate over appropriate coverage and cost-sharing requirements.     

Employee demand for health insurance and employer health plan choices

Although most private health insurance in US is employment-based, little is known about how employers choose health plans for their employees. In this paper, I examine the relationship between employee preferences for health insurance and the health plans offered by employers. I find evidence that employee characteristics affect the generosity of the health plans offered by employers and the likelihood that employers offer a choice of plans. Although the results suggest that employers do respond to employee preferences in choosing health benefits, the effects of worker characteristics on plan offerings are quantitatively small.     

Increased Patient Cost-Sharing,Weak US Economy,and Poor Health Habits: Implications for Employers and Insurers

Many healthcare stakeholders, including insurers and employers, agree that growth in healthcare costs is inevitable. But the current trend toward further cost-shifting to employees and other health plan members is unsustainable. In 2008, the Zitter Group conducted a large national study on the relationship between insurers and employers, to understand how these 2 healthcare stakeholders interact in the creation of health benefit design. The survey results were previously summarized and discussed in the February/March 2009 issue of this journal. The present article aims to assess the implications of those results in the context of the growing tendency to increase patient cost-sharing, a weak US economy, and poor health habits. Increasing cost-sharing is a blunt instrument: although it may reduce utilization of frivolous services, it may also result in individuals forgoing medically necessary care. Increases in deductibles will lead to an overall decrease in optimal care-seeking behavior as families juggle healthcare costs with a weak economy and stagnating wages.In the spring of 2008, the Zitter Group conducted a large national study of the insurer—employer relationship to understand how these 2 stakeholders interact in the creation of healthcare benefit design. The 2-arm study consisted of concurrent web-based quantitative surveys with commercial managed care executives, large employers, and major employer benefits consultants.1 It was designed to provide a richly detailed snapshot of trends in employer-sponsored healthcare coverage. Despite having varying ideas on specific healthcare benefit design strategies, employers and insurers assign similar weights to the importance of cost, quality, and access when making benefit design decisions.1,2 For both groups, the importance assigned to cost is 1.5 times higher in value than healthcare access or healthcare quality.1 Throughout the survey, both groups cited access and quality concerns, but in the current environment of steadily rising cost growth, the importance assigned to cost takes on an even greater significance. The survey results were summarized in the February/March issue of this journal.1 The present article is a follow-up to that article, and its goal is to place those survey results in the context of increased patient cost-sharing, a weak US economy, and the poor health habits that are characteristic of many segments of the American population.According to the data from the Benefit Design Index, in the absence of clear alternatives to traditional benefit designs, cost-shifting to patients through increases in copayments, deductibles, and premiums remains the primary cost-containment strategy used by employers and insurers. More than half of employers and three quarters of insurers have increased their premiums and deductibles between June 2007 and June 2008.1 Furthermore, two thirds of insurers and half of employers do not believe that the recent slowing growth rate of premiums is sustainable and, as a result, expect to increase all forms of patient cost-sharing.1 However, employers remain aware of the dangers of passing too many costs to employees; high out-of-pocket costs can translate into reduced adherence to medical treatments and, ultimately, deteriorating employee health and productivity.1,2In 2003, 30% of employees reported having a chronic health condition.3 That rate was likely to be even higher in 2008.4 The American Hospital Association reported that approximately 69 million workers took 1 or more sick days in 2003, totaling 407 million lost work days.3 In addition, 50% of employees reported being distracted at work by health concerns, reducing their productivity.3 Although absenteeism and lost productivity cost estimates vary widely, it is likely that they cost US businesses several million dollars a year.5,6 Combine the burdens of high employer healthcare costs, deteriorating employee health, and a weak US economy, and you have the ingredients for a “perfect storm”—one that is likely to lead to an insurance “death spiral,” from which we may not be able to recover.     

Occupational exposure monitoring data collection,storage, and use among state-based and private workers' compensation insurers

Despite substantial financial and personnel resources being devoted to occupational exposure monitoring (OEM) by employers, workers' compensation insurers, and other organizations, the United States (U.S.) lacks comprehensive occupational exposure databases to use for research and surveillance activities. OEM data are necessary for determining the levels of workers' exposures; compliance with regulations; developing control measures; establishing worker exposure profiles; and improving preventive and responsive exposure surveillance and policy efforts. Workers' compensation insurers as a group may have particular potential for understanding exposures in various industries, especially among small employers. This is the first study to determine how selected state-based and private workers' compensation insurers collect, store, and use OEM data related specifically to air and noise sampling.

?Of 50 insurers contacted to participate in this study, 28 completed an online survey. All of the responding private and the majority of state-based insurers offered industrial hygiene (IH) services to policyholders and employed 1 to 3 certified industrial hygienists on average. Many, but not all, insurers used standardized forms for data collection, but the data were not commonly stored in centralized databases. Data were most often used to provide recommendations for improvement to policyholders. Although not representative of all insurers, the survey was completed by insurers that cover a substantial number of employers and workers. The 20 participating state-based insurers on average provided 48% of the workers' compensation insurance benefits in their respective states or provinces. These results provide insight into potential next steps for improving the access to and usability of existing data as well as ways researchers can help organizations improve data collection strategies. This effort represents an opportunity for collaboration among insurers, researchers, and others that can help insurers and employers while advancing the exposure assessment field in the U.S.     

Return to Work Following Breast Cancer Treatment: The Employers’ Side

Purpose Research on employers’ experiences with return to work (RTW) of employees with breast cancer is lacking. Employers seem to be the key people to create good working conditions. Our aim is to explore how Belgian employers experience their role and responsibility in RTW of employees with breast cancer. Methods Using a qualitative design (Grounded Theory) 17 employers from the public (7), private (5) and non-profit (5) sector, directly involved in the RTW process, were interviewed. The analysis was based on the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (QUAGOL) with constant data comparison and interactive team dialogue as important guiding characteristics. Results RTW of employees with breast cancer is experienced by employers as an intangible process that is difficult to manage. This was expressed in (1) concern, referring to the employer’s personal and emotional involvement, (2) uncertainty about the course of illness and the guidance needed by the employee and (3) specific dilemmas in the RTW process (when does one infringe on employee privacy; employee vs. organization interest; employers’ personal vs. professional role). The degree to which this was experienced related to variety in organizational, employer, and employee factors. Conclusions The findings of this study confirm the importance of the employer’s involvement in RTW of employees with breast cancer and contribute to a better understanding of its complexity. The employers did their best to grasp the intangibility of the RTW process. Further research is needed to refine these findings and to discover the specific needs of employers regarding supporting RTW of breast cancer patients.     

Universal health insurance: lessons of the 1970s, prospects for the 1990s

In the 1970s, proposals for universal health insurance were not successful. Health care providers, insurers, and others negotiating in the political process foresaw a better future without such legislation. Today, the growth of health insurance coverage has unmistakably reversed. Moral discomfort and self-interest shape the new politics of universal health insurance for the 1990s. Hospitals, physicians, insurers, employers, and tens of millions of individuals would benefit from a universal health insurance plan that was mindful of their concerns and interests. Proposals that require employers to provide insurance for full-time employees and expand public programs to cover to cover other uninsured persons now have the greatest chances for enactment. As leaders, health services and health insurance executives should be in the vanguard of efforts to enact universal health insurance.     

The impact of a comprehensive medical benefit cost management program for the city of Birmingham: results at five years

Double digit annual increases in the cost of medical benefits represent one of the major financial challenges for many private and public sector employers. Gaining greater control is a top priority. Since the procurement, administration, and delivery of employee/dependent medical care is a highly complex venture, it is unlikely that any one activity will contain costs effectively. This report examines a comprehensive cost management effort for the municipal government of the city of Birmingham, Alabama, which included health promotion, medical plan redesigning, managed care, and "how to use the medical system" education programs. The $3 million project was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the employer and conducted from 1985 to 1990. In 1985, medical benefits expenses for the 3,586 employees were $2,047 per employee which was about $400 above the state of Alabama per employee average. In 1990, for 4,000 employees, it was $2,075 which was $922 below the state average. While the project design does not permit a precise evaluation of the exact impact of each of the cost containment activities, attempts are made to estimate their impact. Several health promotion activities, which may be unique to this project, including the all-employee medical screen, are presented and evaluated.     

Switching benefits and costs in competitive health insurance markets: A conceptual framework and empirical evidence from the Netherlands

Competitive health insurance markets will only enhance cost-containment, efficiency, quality, and consumer responsiveness if all consumers feel free to easily switch insurer. Consumers will switch insurer if their perceived switching benefits outweigh their perceived switching costs. We developed a conceptual framework with potential switching benefits and costs in competitive health insurance markets. Moreover, we used a questionnaire among Dutch consumers (1091 respondents) to empirically examine the relevance of the different switching benefits and costs in consumers’ decision to (not) switch insurer. Price, insurers’ service quality, insurers’ contracted provider network, the benefits of supplementary insurance, and welcome gifts are potential switching benefits. Transaction costs, learning costs, ‘benefit loss’ costs, uncertainty costs, the costs of (not) switching provider, and sunk costs are potential switching costs. In 2013 most Dutch consumers switched insurer because of (1) price and (2) benefits of supplementary insurance. Nearly half of the non-switchers – and particularly unhealthy consumers – mentioned one of the switching costs as their main reason for not switching. Because unhealthy consumers feel not free to easily switch insurer, insurers have reduced incentives to invest in high-quality care for them. Therefore, policymakers should develop strategies to increase consumer choice.     

Whither career development in the NHS?

Observes that changes in the nature of employment and career development in the private sector have also affected the National Health Service in a similar way. Highlights how economic pressures have forced organizations to rationalize their workforces, and with this has come an end to the psychological contract which has existed between employers and employees. Outlines the nature of those changes, and their effect on individuals who need to take responsibility for their own career development. Suggests that there is now a need to develop a new moral contract between employers and employees. In return for job security, employers can offer a range of developmental opportunities to enable employees to become more employable when new employment is required.     

Priority care for employees: a blessing in disguise?

This paper discusses the efficiency and equity effects of priority care for employees. Recent privatization of workers' compensation insurance in the Netherlands caused an increasing tension between public responsibility for health care cost-containment and private responsibility for sick pay. As a result of strict supply side regulation, waiting lists increased, while at the same time employers became fully responsible for sick pay. To reduce sick pay and production losses, employers are prepared to pay for priority care by using available excess capacity. We argue that the criteria of Pareto and Rawls can provide a rationale for the resulting differential treatment of employees and non-employees. However, such a justification crucially depends on weights society assigns to absolute versus relative improvements in access to health care.     

Comparing employee health benefits in the public and private sectors, 1997

Data from the 1997 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Employer Health Insurance Survey provide new information comparing public- and private-sector employee health benefits. The federal government is ahead of other employers in adopting managed competition principles using financial incentives and consumer information to promote choosing efficient plans. Federal employees experience a $200 annual compensation gap relative to those in the private sector, but it is partly explained by advantage in purchasing power. In contrast, state and local governments make higher payments toward health insurance than private-sector employers do. Their premiums are equivalent, but they pay a greater share of the total cost.     

How to present the business case for healthcare quality to employers

Many employers in the US are investing in new programmes to improve the quality of medical care and simultaneously shifting more of the healthcare costs to their employees without understanding the implications on the amount and type of care their employees will receive. These seemingly contradictory actions reflect an inability by employers to accurately assess how their health benefit decisions affect their profits. This paper proposes a practical method that employers can use to determine how much they should invest in the health of their workers and to identify the best benefit designs to encourage appropriate healthcare delivery and use. This method could also be of value to employers in other countries who are considering implementing programmes to improve employee health. The method allows a programme that improves workers' health to generate four financial benefits for an employer - reduced medical costs, reduced absences, improved on-the-job productivity, and reduced turnover - and uses accurate estimates of the benefits of reducing absences and improving productivity.