IBJNews

Policyholders could pay more under Obama health plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If President Barack Obama gets what he wants in his health care plan — covering all Americans and barring insurers from denying coverage — some analysts say individuals could wind up paying higher premiums.

The Obama plan would impose new costs on insurance companies, which would probably then raise the prices customers pay for coverage. Employers also would likely pass on some of their higher costs to employees.

An individual in a typical plan might have to pay up to $780 more for the same coverage in the first year of Obama's plan, estimates Erik Gordon, a health care analyst and assistant professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business. Gordon said employees now typically pay 20 percent to 40 percent of the premium for a typical health care package costing about $13,000 a year for a family of four, with employers picking up the rest.

Obama's plan would raise insurers' costs 10 percent to 15 percent if reform doesn't provide other savings, Gordon estimated. He thinks employers would stick employees with perhaps 40 percent of the higher premium, or $520 to $780 more — though they might also receive better coverage because of mandatory preventive care and screenings.

The president told Congress most of health care reform can be paid for by eliminating waste and abuse in the existing system. Better screenings that prevent chronic diseases later would also save money, the administration has argued.

"The president's plan will introduce choice and competition into the health insurance market. The increased availability of affordable health insurance options will lower health costs for all Americans," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the White House Office of Health Reform.

In his speech to Congress on Wednesday night, Obama said he wants to bar insurers from denying coverage to anyone because of a pre-existing health problem, canceling policies for sick people or refusing to cover preventive care. He also suggested limits on Americans' co-payments and deductibles.

"We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick," the president said.

Obama would also charge insurers a fee for their most expensive policies as a way of encouraging insurers to keep costs low and keep their rates low. In addition, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has proposed a new fee on insurers that would subsidize coverage for uninsured Americans. The fee would generate about $6 billion a year.

Covering tens of millions more Americans would heap hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on managed care companies. Yet insurers stand to benefit in other ways. Consultants estimate Obama's priorities would shower the industry with at least $1 trillion in new revenue from premiums over the next decade. Industry representatives counter that, even if insurers take in more money than they pay out, profit margins are so thin that additional taxes and fees would wind up being passed on to policyholders.

"There is no room for these taxes," said H. Edward Hanway, CEO of Cigna. "What you're ultimately going to see if those taxes hold is everybody's costs going up, not just the new people being covered. The concern I have is these taxes don't do anything but add to the cost of people already insured."

Others said Obama's plan might not raise costs as much as expected if everyone is required to have insurance and receive preventive care like regular checkups or mammograms, which can save money in the long run. Lawmakers have yet to settle on any single health care plan. But several ideas being discussed could be a boon to private health insurers, especially if the eventual reform does not include a public plan to compete with them.

Obama reiterated his support for a public plan but did not insist on it, and industry analysts think the idea will disappear eventually. That helps explain why analysts don't think the insurance industry faces any serious threat from the Obama plan. The stocks of several health insurers performed better than the broader market yesterday.

Shares of Cigna rose more than 5 percent, and Humana Inc., Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. and Aetna Inc. all climbed at least 2 percent.

Investors are "coming more and more to the conclusion that it's really not going to hurt," said BMO Capital Markets analyst Dave Shove. Shove noted that many insurers already operate profitably in states that have restrictions similar to those being discussed in reform proposals. These include limits on profitability and laws that guarantee coverage for individual insurance. Health care reform without a public option "would be fantastic" for insurers, said Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a Virginia-based health care consulting firm.

"They're going to get millions of new customers and more than a trillion in new premiums over a 10-year period," said Laszewski, a former industry executive. "There's a reason they aren't running any negative ads."

The plan also would send new business to providers. Another analyst, David Bachman of Longbow Research in Independence, Ohio, expects spending on doctor visits would jump $8.5 billion a year under Obama's proposal. He also expects to see an initial increase in spending on supplies used during patient visits, amounting to roughly $2 billion per year, and billions of dollars more for diagnostic testing and prescription drugs.

Overall, Bachman said his "back-of-the-envelope calculation" indicates a 15-percent increase in spending at hospitals, 17 percent more for doctor visits and 10 to 12 percent more for patient supplies. Insurers will then pass those increases on to customers, he said.

"They're going to raise premiums on employers, who are going to raise costs for employees," Bachman said. "Then the fight becomes over how to best control costs."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT