|
October 2006
HEALTH INSURANCE
National Health Care Help your clients understand the disadvantages of a government-run system and encourage them to use consumer-directed plans.
Many people believe the U.S. government should take control of health care. They see this as the path to reducing the administrative, marketing and sales costs of health care, making it affordable for everyone. Some agents endorse this idea because they believe it would leave their clients with more discretionary money to put into other financial-planning vehicles. And your clients may be excited about the prospect of what they think will be guaranteed health care. What guarantees?
And some of you, being familiar with the industry, may be thinking that administrative costs of private health insurance programs are excessive—often as much as 25, 35 or even 45 percent of premium, while federal administrative costs for Medicare are only 5.6 percent, according to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. If so, you might be thinking that 20 percent or more of the premium dollar will be freed up if the government manages health care. But let’s take a look at some facts you need to consider—and your clients need to understand—when evaluating that 5.6 percent figure:
Simply put, there are no premium dollars to capture by shifting health-care administrative costs to government agencies. Rather, history has shown that as governments increase their influence on private transactions, the overall cost goes up. With health care, the quantity and quality of services provided suffer as well. Your clients also need to consider that no matter which solution prevails, they will still have to pay—government-managed health care is paid for by taxes. So instead of purchasing an insurance policy from you or a health agent, employer clients will pay premiums in the form of taxes to the IRS and answer to federal bureaucrats who enforce laws pertaining to national health care. Instead of dealing with labor negotiators or employees, the employer will be trying to influence a Congressman or arguing with an IRS officer while fighting off a host of special-interest lobbying groups that demand more covered benefits. The way to go
Help your clients see the value of indemnity health plans—today called high-deductible health plans (HDHPs). These form an integral part of the movement toward consumer-directed health care, in which the insured person is involved in the purchase transaction. In a March 2006 bulletin, CIGNA reported on the health-care costs for 182,000 policyholders, comparing the spending of those with HDHPs to those with traditional plans. Among those with high-deductible plans, medical costs showed an 8 percent decrease while traditional plan (HMO/PPO) medical costs among the same employer groups increased by 4 percent—for a 12 percent swing in health-care cost. Inpatient costs declined 5 percent for those with HDHPs, and when compared to traditional plans, those costs were about 18 percent lower, according to the study. Outpatient costs also declined by 12 percent for HDHP owners and were 12 percent lower than those with traditional plans. Remarkably, CIGNA found that even those with traditional plans curbed their health-care spending. What’s in it for you? For more information about health-care reform issues, visit the Association of Health Insurance Advisors at www.ahia.net. Greg Dattilo, CFP, CEBS, is an employee benefits consultant with more than 30 years of experience. Dave Racer is a writer specializing in small-business advocacy. They are co-authors of Your Health Matters: Myths, Misconceptions & Untold Truths of U.S. Health Care, available for AHIA members at a 20 percent discount at www.alethospress.com/ahia.htm. You can contact Dattilo and Racer at alethospress@comcast.net or 651.340.1911.
Related Articles
© Advisor Today 2008. All rights reserved.
|
|