What’s Wrong With A ‘One-Size Fits-All’ Health Plan?
August 28, 2019
We’re Health Care Stupid…
Despite the efforts of employee benefits managers, consultants, brokers, communications and health care policy experts, Americans have limited health literacy—“the ability to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services to make appropriate health decisions.” Surveys show that Americans know a lot less about health insurance than they think they do. A 2016 survey conducted by Policygenius, revealed that 96% of Americans don't understand the terms deductible, coinsurance, copay, and out-of-pocket maximum. A 2019 United Healthcare study, as reported by Motley Fool, showed that 90% did not know the insurance terms: premium, deductible, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket maximum.
It’s hard to make wise health care decisions if you don’t understand basic, cost-related health insurance terms that are part of most private health plans. We could eliminate premiums, deductibles, coinsurance, and copays under our current for-profit health care system. No one has to learn these terms. But instead of removing these terms from their health plans, employers and insurers have added more complexity. So-called health plan design innovations are the latest buzz in employer-sponsored health plans. Centers of excellence, reference-based pricing, high-performance networks, etc.: these cost-containment strategies replaced by one simple reform—one health care plan for everyone.
One Health Plan Is All We Need
Employers have it all wrong when it comes to health plan design. We don’t need a thousand different types of health plans, or health plan design innovations. A thousand different health plans require a thousand different documents that insurers must store in their systems. That equals more time spent doing system administration, and less time evaluating health care quality. If we had just one health plan:
- We could simplify health plan administration.
- We could simplify health care billing (by having one claim form and one billing form) and reduce billing errors (fewer billing codes).
- We could reduce doctor burnout caused by excessive plan administration tasks.
- We could force hospital administrators to focus on health care quality, not contract negotiations.
- We could spend less time learning health plan terms.
- We could eliminate bad health plan choices and eliminate the need for decision support tools.
- We could eliminate the time and expense of annual insurance renewals (and shopping for insurance altogether).
- We could eliminate the stress of searching for the ‘best’ health plan.
- We could prevent more knowledgeable insurance sales representatives from taking advantage of less knowledgeable employer representatives and people (not saying all or most sales reps take advantage of their clients, but the incentives exist for those so inclined).
Conclusion
Employers need to put the brakes on health plan design innovations. Plan design has never been an effective way to control costs. Preferred provider organization (PPOs) and high deductible health (HDHP) plans have failed to reduce health care costs; they just shift more costs to the individual. These types of plans rely on a deductible:coinsurance structure that people simply do not understand. They also limit the standardization of claims and billing processing, functions that we know increase the cost of health care for everyone.
blog comments powered by Disqus