Tired of company butting into our healthcare...

[Chuckanut]

I can understand the distaste of having to give out so much personal information to organizations because our employer wants us to. It is a by product of getting health insurance through work. That really needs to end or at least be reduced to more simple benefit like "We will give you a $3000 a year voucher to help pay for health insurance. After that it's your choice about the policy you purchase and where you get your care."

I doubt of most employers want to be in the business of providing health care to their employees.

 

[Sue J]

When we had DHs employer coverage they had a lot of preventative and chronic condition wellness plan incentives. It was all voluntary and the incentives were quite nice. I never felt it was intrusive. I never thought about if the info was kept private. Hmmm.

What the OP is describing is quite different. I don't blame you for feeling the need to rant.

 

[rodi]

Too many employees are mindfully ignorant of health care costs and what a maddening system we have in the US (it's not a system at all, it's an antiquated hodgepodge with regulations that only make it more difficult for patients and providers).

As employee contributions to healthcare started rising by major leaps and bounds I started culling COBRA data from the internal website, year by year. That allowed me to look at what the total cost of the insurance was (employer and employee portion of the premiums). I could then look to see if the employee contribution was increasing as a percentage. No surprise, it was.

I was fortunate, and recognized it, that the employer was still paying a significant percentage - it went from 80% employer paid, to about 70% employer paid... But the cost sharing on the price increases definitely skewed to have the employer paying a greater share.

Cobra payment info was also a metric I tracked for years as part of my early retirement budget... a concrete number I could use to plug in my budget for healthcare. Maybe for that reason I was more in tune with what the total cost was, vs just the employee contribution.

 

[BBQ-Nut]

Like the auto insurance co. would like everyone to have monitoring devices installed in cars -(under their explanation that it will reduce premiums) - just wait for the health ins cos. to require 'implants' to monitor exactly how much you exercise, eat, drink....you know - to keep premiums down.

 

[Htown Harry]

Separating employment from health insurance is what I see as the main benefit of the ACA and I hope to see employers, especially government employers, stop offering health insurance in the future.

"Especially" government employers? Why?

 

[SumDay]

I can understand the frustration, but you can't complain about the cost of health care and at the same time complain about the company's efforts to fight cost increases.

+1. Exactly. The less the spend on health care, the more money they have for the bonus pool. I'd rather get a big fat bonus check. Plus, it has pushed DH into watching his cholesterol, diet, etc., without me nagging at him. My megacorp is doing it for me. Thank you megacorp. I only have three more years, and then I'll have to resume this duty.

 

[Walt34]

That really needs to end or at least be reduced to more simple benefit like "We will give you a $3000 a year voucher to help pay for health insurance. After that it's your choice about the policy you purchase and where you get your care."

One post-retirement employer I had did exactly that or close enough. Instead of health insurance, we were paid directly $3.31 an hour for "health & welfare" that was to be used for health insurance if you wanted/needed it and for beer or whatever if you didn't. This was required by the federal contract.

Since I and many others already had health insurance from previous employers we bought "beer or whatever" with it.

 

[clifp]

Decoupling does seem to be an essential first step.

I can understand the frustration, but you can't complain about the cost of health care and at the same time complain about the company's efforts to fight cost increases. While working I was exposed first hand to employee complaints/expectations AND to managing cases/costs/regulations - there are two valid sides to the debate. Most (not all) company's that offer health care benefits (a legacy for most) absorb a far greater portion of health care expenses than do employees themselves. Too many employees are mindfully ignorant of health care costs and what a maddening system we have in the US (it's not a system at all, it's an antiquated hodgepodge with regulations that only make it more difficult for patients and providers).

The root of the problem is the cost of health care in the US, about double that of every other country in the world. When we (consumers, voters) attack the causes for the high cost of health care in the US (discussed at length in many other threads), company's won't be caught in the middle trying to deal with health care.

"We" shouldn't be surprised when a company's efforts to rein in health care costs, to the benefit of employees, are sometimes misguided. I can assure you your company would rather not deal with health care, something way outside their core competency for most companies.

I completely agree the first step is to decouple healthcare with unemployment. The most important thing I got out of the healthcare debate is that there just isn't a silver bullet solution to controlling health care in the country.

A huge problem is that payers and beneficiaries not only have wildly different incentives, in many case they don't even know who the ultimate persons is who writes the check. I don't know for years that my Megacorp was self funded for insurance. It turns out that most Fortune 500 firm are, and there is a big business called captive insurance. So ultimately if your lifestyle results in lung cancer or type two diabetes the cost to pay for the treatment means lower profits for them.

Now as part owner of your megacorp, I like to see higher profits, which generally leads to higher dividends, which means more income for me.
So while I am sympathetic the hassle involved, to be honest a big part of me is applauding their efforts.

Obviously this is only helpful if these incentives work to reduce costs. Financial incentive do change behavior but it is far from foolproof. A $1,000 maybe enough to convince Joe to stop smoking but it may take $10K for Jill, and you could offer Bill $1 million and still smoke 3 packs/day. I invested in one company developing technology to help reduce/control health care cost and seen presentation by a dozen others. I know companies are struggling to find what works.

The only good thing about linking insurance to employment is that at least companies have incentive to reduce cost.

 

[Dixie19]

The sleeper cases these biometric screenings uncover truly saves people's lives. And yes, they save the employer money (and this trickles down to the employee premiums) I understand how distrusting employees are when change is implemented, and took a lot of verbal abuse. I even received a scathing letter from a (overweight) paralegal calling participating being linked to premiums extortion. Of course I shared the letter with the CEO. But truly, a ridiculous percent of us don't get proper preventive care, even when it's covered at 100%. I can say, as the employer, I did not receive, nor care to receive, individualized data on my employees. Just stats from BCBS on who participated so I could properly reduce their premiums. I still agree this program, and the whole current state of our healthcare system, is a mess. That's one reason I retired at 53. But nothing was as satisfying as the 4 people who thanked me for a program that helped them get early intervention for serious life threatening conditions they would have otherwise not discovered.


Benefits Mgr in Texas

 

[rodi]

Marketplace (NPR program) had a piece on yesterday about how big these wellness programs are and that they don't really improve heatlh.

It's a 6 billion dollar industry.

Pros
- rates for employers are being held in check.

Cons
- some of that is because rates for employees are going up because they flunk the wellness program and had increased premiums
- they haven't been shown to improve employee heath.

From the podcast blurb:

"What's really happening in many instances is that costs are getting shifted to employees, whether it's because they don't meet certain goals or they don't conform in certain ways," she says. "Healthcare costs are going down for companies, but not so much for individuals and families."

And they're not having any lasting effects on their health, either, she adds.

"All these incentives, all these hurdles, greatly increase the cost of testing employees. So these things are more costly than you might think."

The shortcomings of the corporate wellness program | Marketplace.org

 

[rodi]

dup.

 

[sengsational]

I can understand the frustration, but you can't complain about the cost of health care and at the same time complain about the company's efforts to fight cost increases.

+1. Exactly. The less the spend on health care, the more money they have for the bonus pool. I'd rather get a big fat bonus check. Plus, it has pushed DH into watching his cholesterol, diet, etc., without me nagging at him. My megacorp is doing it for me. Thank you megacorp. I only have three more years, and then I'll have to resume this duty.

Well, it might depend on HOW they are attempting to save money. The biometric screening is a method where there is a little money saved and the medical industrial complex maintains or enhances their profits (and protects their inefficiencies). What if it were required that health outcomes be public, reasonable prices that people actually pay were public, so people could actually shop effectively? That would be the kind of cost savings that would make a difference, not this piddly little shell game with biometric screening.

 

[Dixie19]

As a preferred employer in a competitive market, we were committed to paying no less than 85% of the health care costs, and we kept that commitment. The last two years I was there, we absorbed the premium cost increases as a gesture of goodwill. It's a really tough task and not all employers are just trying to get by by with as little expense as possible, especially if you want to keep a valued technical workforce.

 

[unno2002]

[FONT=&quot]By the tax code, the politicians in the US, long ago, gave employers control over whatever health insurance (disease/injury management insurance) that was offered to their employees. What would make more logic would be individuals being able to deduct from their tax filings their chosen insurance premiums. [/FONT]

 

[Unpaintedhuffhines]

With the explosion in wearable technology (Apple Watch, Fitbit, Nike Fuelband, etc.), we are only a few steps away from insurance companies having access to all of our health data. Would you want to save $1,500 a year if you allowed your health insurance company to know the number of steps you took, your weight, body fat percentage and how many days a week you had at least 30 minutes of cardio?

 

[Midpack]

With the explosion in wearable technology (Apple Watch, Fitbit, Nike Fuelband, etc.), we are only a few steps away from insurance companies having access to all of our health data. Would you want to save $1,500 a year if you allowed your health insurance company to know the number of steps you took, your weight, body fat percentage and how many days a week you had at least 30 minutes of cardio?

I'd make that deal for a $1500 discount, but it would have to start as a voluntary program, and obviously only healthy individuals would "subscribe" - so we end up with two (another) tiers. Why shouldn't people who are able/make the effort to maintain their health reap some benefit? There will undoubtedly be reasonable people on both sides of this issue.

 

[BBQ-Nut]

With the explosion in wearable technology (Apple Watch, Fitbit, Nike Fuelband, etc.), we are only a few steps away from insurance companies having access to all of our health data. Would you want to save $1,500 a year if you allowed your health insurance company to know the number of steps you took, your weight, body fat percentage and how many days a week you had at least 30 minutes of cardio?

No, because they will want more lifestyle information as well - and that is too invasive to my privacy....imho, of course.

 

[Walt34]

I'd make that deal for a $1500 discount, but it would have to start as a voluntary program, and obviously only healthy individuals would "subscribe" - so we end up with two (another) tiers.

No, because they will want more lifestyle information as well - and that is too invasive to my privacy....imho, of course.

I'd think about it but like BBQ-Nut I'd be very wary of TMI to the insurance industry. Of course I'm one of those living a healthy lifestyle so would benefit the most. There were times when I didn't.

 

[Live Free]

The sleeper cases these biometric screenings uncover truly saves people's lives. And yes, they save the employer money (and this trickles down to the employee premiums) I understand how distrusting employees are when change is implemented, and took a lot of verbal abuse. I even received a scathing letter from a (overweight) paralegal calling participating being linked to premiums extortion. Of course I shared the letter with the CEO. But truly, a ridiculous percent of us don't get proper preventive care, even when it's covered at 100%. I can say, as the employer, I did not receive, nor care to receive, individualized data on my employees. Just stats from BCBS on who participated so I could properly reduce their premiums. I still agree this program, and the whole current state of our healthcare system, is a mess. That's one reason I retired at 53. But nothing was as satisfying as the 4 people who thanked me for a program that helped them get early intervention for serious life threatening conditions they would have otherwise not discovered.

I appreciate this. But couldn't employers just then tie their contribution to getting a wellness check-up with their own doctor - which is an already covered expense? Why the need to hire some third party vendor that isn't the insurance company or a personal doctor? What about the wellness walking program incentive prescribed by this biometric firm to an overweight diabetic that results in a heart attack? You know the old adage before starting an exercise program is to consult with your doctor. Not a third party vendor who only knows your height/weight and bloodwork results but never bothered to ask about if you suffer from intermittent chest pains, tingling feet, or some other symptom that would have a medical doctor digging more deeply into ones health.

You know, there are unhealthy people that absolutely should not participate in any wellness program that isn't closely monitored by their physician.

 

[M Paquette]

I'd think about it but like BBQ-Nut I'd be very wary of TMI to the insurance industry. Of course I'm one of those living a healthy lifestyle so would benefit the most. There were times when I didn't.

This. MIB Group (formerly Medical Information Bureau) is still around, and still in operation, sharing data between member insurers under the insurance anti-trust exemption. Should some groups get their wish and insurers are able to return to denying pre-existing condition coverage or cancelling policies on errata (rather than fraud), folks may regret signing away this information.

Be careful, and consider potential consequences against perceived benefits.

 

[Live Free]

With the explosion in wearable technology (Apple Watch, Fitbit, Nike Fuelband, etc.), we are only a few steps away from insurance companies having access to all of our health data.

Well I actually do have one friend that puts her pedometer on her young dog's collar to rack up steps each day. Sends the dog out with the kids and gets all kinds of steps added on her pedometer. Her company gives out gift cards to employees that hit a certain average (I think 10K steps per day) each month.

I'm sure she is not the only one that does this. Obviously it is not helping her health -- but unless her company goes to ankle police bracelets as pedometers...

 

[BBQ-Nut]

Well I actually do have one friend that puts her pedometer on her young dog's collar to rack up steps each day. Sends the dog out with the kids and gets all kinds of steps added on her pedometer. Her company gives out gift cards to employees that hit a certain average (I think 10K steps per day) each month.

I'm sure she is not the only one that does this. Obviously it is not helping her health -- but unless her company goes to ankle police bracelets as pedometers...

It won't be ankle bracelets....wait for voluntary then mandatory 'implants'.

 

[rodi]

I appreciate this. But couldn't employers just then tie their contribution to getting a wellness check-up with their own doctor - which is an already covered expense? Why the need to hire some third party vendor that isn't the insurance company or a personal doctor? What about the wellness walking program incentive prescribed by this biometric firm to an overweight diabetic that results in a heart attack? You know the old adage before starting an exercise program is to consult with your doctor. Not a third party vendor who only knows your height/weight and bloodwork results but never bothered to ask about if you suffer from intermittent chest pains, tingling feet, or some other symptom that would have a medical doctor digging more deeply into ones health.

You know, there are unhealthy people that absolutely should not participate in any wellness program that isn't closely monitored by their physician.

I agree with you - and so does the data in the article I linked previously.

This 3rd party "wellness" industry that corporations hire is $6 Billion a year - in addition to the premiums they're already paying. So it's a big business.

From the article I previously linked - quoting Nancy Koehn of Harvard Business School:

And they're not having any lasting effects on their health, either, she adds.

"All these incentives, all these hurdles, greatly increase the cost of testing employees. So these things are more costly than you might think."

Here's the link to the article and podcast
The shortcomings of the corporate wellness program | Marketplace.org

 

[Live Free]

That is an interesting article Rodi. The ending where Ms. Koehn suggests that there is a darker undertone to these programs really resonates with me. The corporate big brother controlling your life feeling.

I also agree that this is HR folks in corporate america patting themselves on the back for coming up with incentive programs (or maybe not incentives but sometimes big pointy sticks) that do very little in improving long term health but increase employee costs.

I'm guessing that most smokers already know and have been told by their doctor to quit smoking. Smoking cessation programs are already a covered benefit under our health insurance.

Overweight people I am certain know that they are fat and should lose weight to be healthy. Guess what? I just checked and the corporate health insurance covers nutrition programs and has a TON of health care tools related to exercise and weight management available to members for FREE.

I think corporate america is being duped by a third party wellness industry into paying for something they already pay for through their primary health insurance company.

 

[athena53]

You know, there are unhealthy people that absolutely should not participate in any wellness program that isn't closely monitored by their physician.

The program my employer had allowed for modified goals based on what your physician thought appropriate. DH is 76, on prescriptions that depress his appetite, he has a creaky back (currently getting PT for it), and has a balance issue due to a couple of subdural hematomas he got from falls. No, he should NOT be out bicycling with me. He does, however, wear a pedometer even though we're no longer part of the program and is working on exercises to improve his balance and strengthen his back muscles. Nearly every health issue can be improved with changes to diet and exercise, but I do agree that a doctor needs to be involved for major problems. The alternative- resigning yourself to life on the couch with a bag of Cheetos nearby and an army of prescription bottles- isn't good for anyone.