IBJNews

Survey: One-third of Hoosier workers in high-deductible plans

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An annual survey by the benefits consulting firm Mercer found that, among 75 Hoosier employers, 34 percent of workers are already enrolled in consumer-directed health plans.

And that number is only going to go up, as employers try to tamp down expenses in the face of health insurance costs that continue to rise faster than inflation and the new requirements of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Consumer-directed plans come with high deductibles designed to make patients more sensitive to the cost of health care services, and are often paired with a health savings account or health reimbursement arrangement.

The percentage in Indiana was nearly twice as high as the rate nationally, where 18 percent of workers are enrolled in consumer-directed health plans, according to Mercer’s survey of 2,842 employers with at least 10 workers. The survey had a margin of error of 3 percent.

In Indiana, the 75 mostly large employers that participated in the survey are not enough to make the results statistically meaningful. Only eight of those employers had fewer than 50 workers and 42 of them had 500 workers or more.

Nevertheless, the results do jibe with other analyses, which also show consumer-directed health plans continuing to be more popular in Indiana than in the rest of the country—even though the participation in such plans is rising everywhere.

Employers are embracing high-deductible health plans as one of several ways to keep costs lower to counter some of the effects of Obamacare and to duck a tax the law will assess on employers beginning in 2018.

Employers in Indiana would have faced increases in health benefits costs of 9.3 percent per worker next year, if they made no changes to their plans. But most employers expected changes to their health plans to keep those increases to just 4.7 percent.

Nationally, employers worked to trim what would have been an 8-percent increase next year, without changes, to be just 5.2 percent. Such an increase would be the highest since 2011, according to Mercer’s survey data.

“If you think about it as the health care reform hurricane, employers continue to batten down the hatches,” said Andrew Rosenberg, the office leader of Mercer’s health and benefits practice in Indianapolis.

One reason employers are being cost-conscious this year is that they expect Obamacare’s requirement that all individuals obtain health insurance to increase enrollment in their health plans. The median increase employers expect, just from higher enrollment, is 3.5 percent, according to Mercer’s survey.

“The Affordable Care Act continues to create challenges and add costs for employers,” Rosenberg said.

An analysis conducted by Indianapolis-based Apex Benefits Group projected that employer costs would rise 9 percent next year solely because of new provisions in the law. The regular increase in health insurance premiums, which has been rising at about 4 percent per year recently, would be on top of that amount.

Continued annual increases could cause some employers to trigger an Obamacare excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans in 2018 that are valued at $10,200 or more for individual coverage. So a lot of employers are making changes now to avoid paying that 40-percent tax, Rosenberg said.

Health benefits costs averaged $10,779 nationally this year, according to Mercer’s survey. In Indiana, where health care costs and use have been higher for decades, the average was $11,296, about 4.8 percent higher than the national average.

In Indiana, employers appear to have embraced consumer-directed health plans at the expense of HMOs, or health maintenance organizations. Whereas 18 percent of employees nationally are enrolled in HMOs, just 3 percent of Hoosier workers are, according to Mercer’s survey.

The lion’s share of workers are still in health plans based on preferred provider organizations, which have more modest deductibles and limit patients' costs on most health care services to a modest co-pay. Nationally, 64 percent of workers are in PPO plans, compared with 63 percent in Indiana.

Rosenberg cited three reasons for the higher take-up of consumer-directed health plans by Hoosier workers. First, more employers offer them—59 percent in Indiana versus 40 percent nationally.

Second, Indiana employers have been aggressive at promoting consumer-directed health plans and how they could be a better value for their workers.

Third, Hoosier employers have more quickly embraced price-transparency tools to help their employees shop for health care services.

One example is Tennessee-based Healthcare Bluebook, which has signed up clients in Indiana, such as the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, and is now being promoted statewide by Advantage Health Solutions Inc., an Indianapolis-based health insurer.

Another example is California-based Castlight Health, which has signed up a slew of large employers in Indiana, including Indiana University, Purdue University, Cummins Inc., OneAmerica Financial Partners Inc. and CNO Financial Group Inc. Indiana is Castlight’s largest market.

Rosenberg said the growth in consumer-directed health-plan participation will only increase the growth of such services.

“This will continue to be a trend, trying to arm employees with transparency tools,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Cost Structure
    A computational look at the cost structure of the ACA, for those who are interested. I would appreciate your feedback. Good luck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Y-5rjsaJY&src_vid=3h7bvBBVfPc&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_365071601
  • CDHP doesn't lower costs
    It would be fair to say CDHP shift costs to employees rather than lowering costs, unless the employee wins the bet and uses no services. Costs are still high in IN if you use services. Those with health conditions will pay higher premiums and copayments. For high deductibles to yield efficient use, prices would have to reflect costs which this blog has disputed several times. Higher costs in IN are not due to ACA, but are revealed to be characteristic of the health system in the state, particularly in central IN.
  • To art
    Actually, I have discussed the merits of a single-payer system. You can read them at this blog post: http://www.ibj.com/the-dose-2013-08-19-swapping-obamacare-for-a-single-payer-system/PARAMS/post/43080. Give it a read and then ask me any further questions you have.
  • To Patrick James
    I'm sorry to be slow in responding. While the average cost per employee is $10,779, that includes family policies, for which the Cadillac tax won't kick in until a plan is valued at $27,500. Kaiser reports that the average premiums for employer-sponsored single coverage are $5,884 and the average employer-sponsored premiums for family coverage are $16,351: http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/8465-employer-health-benefits-2013-chartpack.pdf.
  • Single Payer
    Of course you never mention that single-payer health insurance - Medicare for All - would solve ALL of our health care problems...you take the expense off employers and reduce the costs dramatically by taking the profit OUT of the insurance equation...we had to choose a new plan this year because of course the employer is AGAIN looking for new insurance company due to cost and of course the choices are confusing and difficult to compare even for two professionals who have worked in health care for our entire professional careers! One thing you never mention JK is the fact that ALL of this non-sense would go away if we adopted universal health insurance (of course your corporate masters at Anthem would be sad)
    • Question re Cadillac plans
      JK, I have written before about my spouse's employer changing her plan, because it was a Cadillac plan. I am looking at two items in this article, pasted below. Can these two items be (correctly) interpreted to suggest that the AVERAGE plan in the US/Indiana is already a "Cadillac" plan, because of the cost? Continued annual increases could cause some employers to trigger an Obamacare excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans in 2018 that are valued at $10,200 or more for individual coverage. So a lot of employers are making changes now to avoid paying that 40-percent tax, Rosenberg said. Health benefits costs averaged $10,779 nationally this year, according to Mercer’s survey. In Indiana, where health care costs and use have been higher for decades, the average was $11,296, about 4.8 percent higher than the national average.

      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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

      2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

      3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

      4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

      5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

      ADVERTISEMENT