A new article in Employee Benefit News looks at the notion of employer “pay-or-play” provisions and examines what kinds of employer-sponsored benefits provide a return on investment. There continues to be some question whether certain programs sponsored by employers do in fact return value. Here is an excerpt from the article:
Health management programs are not without their critics. Research by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services shows some health management programs don’t live up to their promises of reducing health care expenses.
“As an actuary, I run the formulas of disease management companies on large databases and understand why they can show an ROI increase in their formulas and what the flaws are within those formulas,” said Bruce Pyenson, a principal and consulting actuary with Milliman, a New York-based actuarial and consulting firm.
Pyenson pointed out that Americans are living longer, disability rates are lower and events associated with some chronic conditions are at an all-time low. “Americans are healthier than ever, despite the obesity epidemic,” Pyenson contended….Pyenson explained that the idea “you spend more money now in order to save more money later is an idea that does not work.”
Health care reform puts the spotlight on “some bad behaviors that employers have gotten into with benefit plans designs. Now is the time to sweep out some of that trash that accumulated over the years in benefits plans,” asserted Pyenson.
For example, employers can save money by dropping disease managementand employee assistance programs, and value-based insurance designs. “It’s been proven that the stuff doesn’t work,” Pyenson said. Employers instead should aim for tighter formularies on prescription drugs benefits and challenge the commissions of brokers and consultants.
According to Pyenson, employers also can earn substantial dollar savings by moving to a limited network, tightening medical management, limiting out-of-network benefits or offering no out-of-network benefits.
No system is perfect and there is no single pathway to success. Geographic, financial resource, and population disparities (among others) preclude adoption of a single methodology to achieve “well managed” status universally. Still, we have concluded that a reduction in overall healthcare costs in excess of 25% would be possible if care were delivered under best observed practices.
As we discussed a few weeks ago, this number squares with the waste estimates posited by Peter Orszag. Where are the opportunities for greater improvement?
Our experience with top-performing systems does show opportunities for efficiency improvements in practically all service categories, but especially in facility-based care. With shifts in the types of treatment and places of service under best-observed clinical practices, certain categories would increase accordingly.
NPR interviewed Peter Orszag of the White House Office of Management and Budget this morning. While the entire interview is worth a listen, one quote jumps out:
Estimates suggest that as much as $700 billion a year in health care costs do not improve health outcomes. It occurs because we pay for more care rather than better care. We need to be moving towards a system in which doctors and hospitals have incentives to provide the care that makes you better, rather than the care that just results in more tests and more days in [the] hospital.
Mr. Schreiner is what’s known in the health care world as a “medical tourist.” No longer covered under his former employer’s insurance and too young to qualify for Medicare, Mr. Schreiner has a private health insurance policy with a steep $10,000 deductible. Not wanting to spend all of that on the $14,000 his operation would have cost stateside, he paid only $3,900 in hospital and doctor’s bills in Costa Rica.
The concept may be compelling, but there are risks. Health consumers are still limited in their ability to compare quality of care in different countries, though sound evidence is emerging. Lisa Beichl, international healthcare expert with the Milliman Care Guidelines, discusses this dynamic in a recent issue of Health Perspectives.
Required cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Analytics & Performance Cookies
Analytics cookies are used to collect information about how visitors use our site. The information gathered does not identify any individual visitor and is aggregated. It includes the number of visitors to our site, the sites that referred them to our site and the pages that they visited on our site. We use this information to help operate our site more efficiently, to gather broad demographic information and to monitor the level of activity on our site. Performance cookies are used to enhance the performance and functionality of our services but are non-essential to their use. However, without these cookies, certain functionality like videos may become unavailable.
These cookies are used when you share information using a social media sharing button or “like” button on our sites or you link your account or engage with our content on or through a social networking site such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+. The social network will record that you have done this. This information may be linked to targeting/ advertising activities.