Employers as Consumers of Healthcare.

Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JP Morgan Chase shocked the industry with its announcement to join forces to cut healthcare costs and improve healthcare services for its employees. This is just the latest of employer efforts to disrupt the industry by the creation of alternative healthcare delivery networks that demonstrate high-value, low-cost services as compared with what traditional provider systems have to offer. What factors are behind this industry disruption, and what are the key implications for nurse executives?

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2019. Final rule.

This final rule sets forth payment parameters and provisions related to the risk adjustment and risk adjustment data validation programs; cost-sharing parameters; and user fees for Federally-facilitated Exchanges and State Exchanges on the Federal platform. It finalizes changes that provide additional flexibility to States to apply the definition of essential health benefits (EHB) to their markets, enhance the role of States regarding the certification of qualified health plans (QHPs); and provide States with additional flexibility in the operation and establishment of Exchanges, including the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges. It includes changes to standards related to Exchanges; the required functions of the SHOPs; actuarial value for stand-alone dental plans; the rate review program; the medical loss ratio program; eligibility and enrollment; exemptions; and other related topics.

The North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees: Strategies in Creating Financial Stability While Improving Member Health.

The North Carolina State Health Plan provides health care coverage to more than 700,000 members, including teachers, state employees, retirees, current and former lawmakers, state university and community college personnel, and their dependents. The State Health Plan is a division of the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer, self-insured, and exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act as a government-sponsored plan. With health care costs rising at rates greater than funding, the Plan must take measures to stem cost growth while ensuring access to quality health care. The Plan anticipates focusing on strategic initiatives that drive results and cost savings while improving member health to protect the Plan's financial future.

Changes in health care spending and quality 4 years into global payment.

BACKGROUND: Spending and quality under global budgets remain unknown beyond 2 years. We evaluated spending and quality measures during the first 4 years of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Alternative Quality Contract (AQC). METHODS: We compared spending and quality among enrollees whose physician organizations entered the AQC from 2009 through 2012 with those among persons in control states. We studied spending changes according to year, category of service, site of care, experience managing risk contracts, and price versus utilization. We evaluated process and outcome quality. RESULTS: In the 2009 AQC cohort, medical spending on claims grew an average of $62.21 per enrollee per quarter less than it did in the control cohort over the 4-year period (P<0.001). This amount is equivalent to a 6.8% savings when calculated as a proportion of the average post-AQC spending level in the 2009 AQC cohort. Analogously, the 2010, 2011, and 2012 cohorts had average savings of 8.8% (P<0.001), 9.1% (P<0.001), and 5.8% (P=0.04), respectively, by the end of 2012. Claims savings were concentrated in the outpatient-facility setting and in procedures, imaging, and tests, explained by both reduced prices and reduced utilization. Claims savings were exceeded by incentive payments to providers during the period from 2009 through 2011 but exceeded incentive payments in 2012, generating net savings. Improvements in quality among AQC cohorts generally exceeded those seen elsewhere in New England and nationally. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with similar populations in other states, Massachusetts AQC enrollees had lower spending growth and generally greater quality improvements after 4 years. Although other factors in Massachusetts may have contributed, particularly in the later part of the study period, global budget contracts with quality incentives may encourage changes in practice patterns that help reduce spending and improve quality. (Funded by the Commonwealth Fund and others.).

Trends in Reported Health Care Affordability for Men and Women With Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Coverage in the US, 2000 to 2020.

This study uses National Health Interview Survey data from 2000 to 2020 to examine reported differences between US men and women aged 19 to 64 years with employer-sponsored insurance in obtaining affordable health care.

The Tax Exclusion for Employer-Sponsored Insurance Is Not Regressive-But What Is It?

Conventional wisdom says that the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) is "regressive and therefore unfair." Yet, by the standard definition of regressive tax policy, the conventional view is almost certainly false. It confuses the absolute size of the tax exclusion with its proportional effect on income. The error results from paying attention only to the marginal tax rate applied to ESI benefits as a portion of income and ignoring the fact that benefits are normally a much larger share of income for people with lower wages. This article explains the difference and then considers other distributional effects of ESI. It suggests that ESI-for those who receive it-further redistributes toward those with lesser means or greater need. The most evident effect is by need, favoring employees with families over those without. Yet there is good reason to believe there is also a redistribution by income, with the package of wages plus benefits being less unequal than wages alone would be. Therefore reformers should be much more careful before criticizing either ESI or its subsidy through the tax code as "unfair," especially as the likelihood of enacting something better in the United States seems quite low.

Next target: tax breaks for employer plans.

Employers and business groups worry that the GOP's proposals to tax employer-provided health benefits could cause instability in a market that serves 178 million Americans.

Bringing Workforce Health to the Top Line-Expanding the Value Proposition for Workforce Health Improvement.

The pressure on employers to justify providing health benefits or to prove the value of health investment has never been greater. Many employers have resorted to cost shifting to employees to dampen the impact of health care costs on their companies or have avoided health investments, believing they don't deliver a return. Both strategies come with significant risk to employees, their dependents and the company's business performance. This article provides a framework for employers to better understand the full impact of workforce health and well-being on bottom-line costs and the opportunities for connecting workforce health and well-being to topline business performance metrics. Application of the principles presented in this commentary can help human resources/benefits personnel better understand the broader business impacts of their workforce health and well-being strategies as well as equip them to have a more meaningful role in workforce strategic planning.

The Current and Projected Taxpayer Shares of US Health Costs.

OBJECTIVES: We estimated taxpayers' current and projected share of US health expenditures, including government payments for public employees' health benefits as well as tax subsidies to private health spending. METHODS: We tabulated official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services figures on direct government spending for health programs and public employees' health benefits for 2013, and projected figures through 2024. We calculated the value of tax subsidies for private spending from official federal budget documents and figures for state and local tax collections. RESULTS: Tax-funded health expenditures totaled $1.877 trillion in 2013 and are projected to increase to $3.642 trillion in 2024. Government's share of overall health spending was 64.3% of national health expenditures in 2013 and will rise to 67.1% in 2024. Government health expenditures in the United States account for a larger share of gross domestic product (11.2% in 2013) than do total health expenditures in any other nation. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to public perceptions and official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates, government funds most health care in the United States. Appreciation of government's predominant role in health funding might encourage more appropriate and equitable targeting of health expenditures.

The "Cadillac Tax" on Health Benefits in the United States Will Hit the Middle Class Hardest: Refuting the Myth That Health Benefit Tax Subsidies Are Regressive.

U.S. employment-based health benefits are exempt from income and payroll taxes, an exemption that provided tax subsidies of $326.2 billion in 2015. Both liberal and conservative economists have denounced these subsidies as "regressive" and lauded a provision of the Affordable Care Act­the Cadillac Tax­that would curtail them. The claim that the subsidies are regressive rests on estimates showing that the affluent receive the largest subsidies in absolute dollars. But this claim ignores the standard definition of regressivity, which is based on the share of income paid by the wealthy versus the poor, rather than on dollar amounts. In this study, we calculate the value of tax subsidies in 2009 as a share of income for each income quintile and for the wealthiest Americans. In absolute dollars, tax subsidies were highest for families between the 80th and 95th percentiles of family income and lowest for the poorest 20%. However, as shares of income, subsidies were largest for the middle and fourth income quintiles and smallest for the wealthiest 0.5% of Americans. We conclude that the tax subsidy to employment-based insurance is neither markedly regressive, nor progressive. The Cadillac Tax will disproportionately harm families with (2009) incomes between $38,550 and $100,000, while sparing the wealthy.

The ACA's Cost-Sharing Reduction Plans: A Key to Affordable Health Coverage for Millions of U.S. Workers.

Issue: Without the cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) made available by the Affordable Care Act, health plans sold in the marketplaces may be unaffordable for many low-income people. CSRs are available to households earning between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level that choose a silver-level marketplace plan. In 2016, about 7 million people received cost-sharing reductions that substantially lowered their deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits. Goal: To examine variations in consumer cost-sharing reductions between silver-level plans with CSRs to traditional marketplace plans and to employer-based insurance. Methods: Data analysis of 1,209 CSR-eligible plans sold in individual marketplaces in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Key findings and conclusions: Cost-sharing amounts in silver plans with CSRs are much less than those in non-CSR base silver plans; silver plans with CSRs generally offer far better financial protection than those without. General annual deductibles range from $246 for CSR silver plans with a platinum-level actuarial value (94%) to as much as $3,063 for non-CSR silver plans. Out-of-pocket limits vary from $6,223 in base silver plans to $1,102 in silver plans with CSRs and a platinum-level actuarial level.

The Slowdown in Employer Insurance Cost Growth: Why Many Workers Still Feel the Pinch.

Issue: Although predictions that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would lead to reductions in employer-sponsored health coverage have not been realized, some of the law's critics maintain the ACA is nevertheless driving higher premium and deductible costs for businesses and their workers. Goal: To compare cost growth in employer-sponsored health insurance before and after 2010, when the ACA was enacted, and to compare changes in these costs relative to changes in workers' incomes. Methods: The authors analyzed federal Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data to compare cost trends over the 10-year period from 2006 to 2015. Key findings and conclusions: Compared to the five years leading up to the ACA, premium growth for single health insurance policies offered by employers slowed both in the nation overall and in 33 states and the District of Columbia. There has been a similar slowdown in growth in the amounts employees contribute to health plan costs. Yet many families feel pinched by their health care costs: despite a recent surge, income growth has not kept pace in many areas of the U.S. Employee contributions to premiums and deductibles amounted to 10.1 percent of U.S. median income in 2015, compared to 6.5 percent in 2006. These costs are higher relative to income in many southeastern and southern states, where incomes are below the national average.

Looking Under the Hood of the Cadillac Tax.

One effect of the Affordable Care Act's "Cadillac tax" (now delayed until 2020) is to undo part of the existing federal tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance. The specific features of this tax on high-cost health plans--notably, the inclusion of tax-favored savings vehicles such as health savings accounts (HSAs) in the formula for determining who is subject to the tax--are designed primarily to maximize revenue and minimize coverage disruptions, not to reduce health spending. Thus, at least initially, these savings accounts, rather than enrollee cost-sharing or other plan features, are likely to be affected most by the tax as employers act to limit their HSA contributions. Because high earners are the ones benefiting most from tax-preferred accounts, the high-cost plan tax will probably be more progressive than prior analyses have suggested, while having only a modest impact on total health spending.

Changes in Consumer Cost-Sharing for Health Plans Sold in the ACA's Insurance Marketplaces, 2015 to 2016.

This brief examines changes in consumer health plan cost-sharing--deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits--for coverage offered in the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces between 2015 and 2016. Three of seven measures studied rose moderately in 2016, an increase attributable in part to a shift in the mix of plans offered in the marketplaces, from plans with higher actuarial value (platinum and gold plans) to those that have less generous coverage (bronze and silver plans). Nearly 60 percent of enrollees in marketplace plans receive cost-sharing reductions as part of income-based assistance. For enrollees without cost-sharing reductions, average copayments, deductibles, and out-of-pocket limits remain considerably higher under bronze and silver plans than under employer-based plans; cost-sharing is similar in gold plans and employer plans. Marketplace plans are more likely than employer-based plans to impose a deductible for prescription drugs but no less likely to do so for primary care visits.

Maybe the ACA Is Here To Stay, But Employers Wish That Cadillac Tax Would Go Away.

Clinton has come out against the Cadillac tax, but what will replace the revenue? If the ACA is repealed, House Republicans have proposed capping the tax exemption for health benefits as a way to curb the appetite for expensive health care benefits.

Ideas for Improving Retirement Wellness.

Employers can and should take steps to support retirement and financial wellness. This article provides a framework for retirement wellness informed by research conducted or supported by the Society of Actuaries. Research insights about Americans' finances, planning, decisions, money management, debt, retiree income shocks and other areas point to ways employers can provide retirement wellness support as a vital part of an overall benefit program. The author suggests several key considerations employers should pay attention to in order to improve retirement wellness.

Workplace Financial Wellness Programs Help Employees Manage Health Care Changes.

Employers and employees are navigating major changes in health insurance benefits, including the move to high-deductible health plans in conjunction with health savings accounts (HSAs). The HSA offers unique benefits that could prove instrumental in helping workers both navigate current health care expenses and build a nest egg for much larger health care costs in retirement. Yet employees often don't understand the HSA and how to best use it. How can employers help employees make wise benefits choices that work for their personal financial circumstances?