Will healthcare reform lead to higher premiums?

September 22, 2010

USA-HEALTHCARE/WELLNESSMany Americans this week are finally getting to try on for size the Affordable Care Act. September 23 marks, just for starters, the end of lifetime payment caps as well as the expansion of parents’ benefits to children under 26. Insurers can also no longer cancel coverage if a policyholder falls sick.

Yet, as the public and lawmakers continue to sift through the details of President Obama’s health package passed last March, one questions lingers in most people’s minds: What is this all going to cost? Not surprisingly, the answer isn’t simple.

To start, important to keep in mind are the long-term savings. By 2019, the legislation is expected to reduce the nation’s uninsured population by 32 million people, which should dramatically cut overall expenditures going forward. Consider, for one, that a study last year by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal think tank, concluded families pay, on average, as much as $1,100 extra each year in order to cover the cost of treatment to uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay their bills — that amounts to as much as 8 percent higher premiums.

Also expected to improve is the U.S.’s fiscal health. In March, the Congressional Budget Office projected the $940 billion package of reforms could reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first 10 years, and by more than $1 trillion over the second decade.

Still, such gains are intangible right now for most people. Indeed, several polls this summer suggest that as many as four out of five Americans are concerned the healthcare overhaul will significantly raise their healthcare costs. Even more concrete, too, are the soaring health premiums most employees have seen in their paychecks this year.

Workers on average are paying nearly $4,000 in 2010 toward the cost of family health coverage, a 14 percent increase over last year, according to a September survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation. What’s more, workers’ contributions to premiums have gone up 47 percent since 2005, while premiums rose 27 percent and wages increased 18 percent.

“With the economy struggling, businesses have been shifting more of the costs of health insurance to workers through premiums, deductibles and other cost-sharing,” Kaiser President and CEO Drew Altman said in a statement. “From a consumer perspective, the cost of health insurance just keeps going up faster than wages.”

Another recent study by the National Business Group on Health (NBGH) found nearly two-thirds of employers planned to ask employees to contribute more toward their premiums in 2011. Insurers across the country have blamed new requirements under the health reforms for raising premiums by as much as nine percent.

Furthermore, several major carriers — including Cigna, WellPoint and CoventryOne — have already said they will end child-only health policies rather than extend coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, as the Affordable Healthcare Act stipulates as of September 23. “How to insure all Americans was a very important issue we needed to solve, and this is a start down that path,” said Helen Darling, NGBH’s president. “What is still worrisome is that there is nothing in the law that controls costs.”

In reality, analysis by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as well as independent groups estimates the added cost of healthcare reform will be no more than one to two percent.  “Insurers have been raising rates for a decade, so the idea health reform is to blame is a total canard,” Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, which supports health reform, said. “If anything, when the law is fully in place, price increases will be moderated, costs overall will be reduced and consumers will be better protected from outrageous premium hikes.”

The Obama Administration has likewise warned insurers not to mislead policyholders about rising costs. “I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote in a Sept. 9 letter to Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the insurers’ trade association.

“It’s a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs, and the impact on premiums depends on the type and amount of coverage policyholders had before,” Ignagni responded the next day.

No doubt this back-and-forth will continue as the rest of the Affordable Healthcare Act’s provisions come online between now and 2014. Part of the bill provides states $1 million to find ways to make the reasons behind rate increases more transparent. The measure as well as other reforms should bring more clarity to healthcare costs. That alone is a good thing, Darling argued.

“With taxpayers carrying a bigger burden of rising costs,” she said, “it’ll be a constant reminder we could — and should — be spending less.”

Photo: Bonnary Lek, a manager at Discovery Communications headquarters, is examined by Discovery Wellness Center Medical Director Liz Sequeira during an appointment at the clinic in Silver Spring, Maryland December 3, 2009.  REUTERS/Jim Bourg

Comments

Its about time US healthcare became fair, everyone has the right to healthcare regardless of economic bracket.

Posted by microstat | Report as abusive
 

“Insurers have been raising rates for a decade, so the idea health reform is to blame is a total canard,” Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, which supports health reform, said. “If anything, when the law is fully in place, price increases will be moderated, costs overall will be reduced and consumers will be better protected from outrageous premium hikes”.

I wonder if Mr. Pollack even understands the basic reason premiums are rising is because the cost of health CARE (medical inflation) is rising. The bill doesn’t even address or have any provision that would attempt to lower the costs of healthcare itself.

Everyone supports HealthCARE reform. We didn’t get anything close to healthcare reform. Why can’t these idiots understand the reason most Americans oppose Obamacare is because Mr. Obama and 218 Democrats passed a bill they hadn’t read or understood in the middle of the night on behalf of 300 million Americans who had no say in the matter.

Posted by DVM | Report as abusive
 

I recall when the lottery was brought into my state. As soon as it opened, I bought tickets and made a profit. I permanently stopped after one week. I knew they were just chumming the water to hook people for the first week. The personal profits of users has been net negative ever since.

After the elections the government medical program is going to squeeze the doctors, raise the average premiums and lower the quality of service. With socialism there is no feedback on the cost of medical care so the public will use it to the hilt to get their premium’s worth. The doctors will retire, finding it not worth the hassle. There will be long lines and treatments ruled out. They will allow nurses to practice medicine in the place of doctors. Maybe even veterinarians.

Socialism always leads to dictatorship. You will be locked to your doctor, no matter how good or bad or despotic he or she is. If you go to another doctor, you and the doctor can be fined or jailed. There will be long lines in Mexican medical facilities by Americans going there to get life-saving treatments.

Posted by Timuchin | Report as abusive
 

It’s a stepping stone because people seem to be blind to raw facts:

I think everyone should read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care _in_the_United_States

And see how capitalism doesn’t work, in oligopolies like health care. You need government intervention, or competition.

Posted by dem_z | Report as abusive
 

Although the bill doesn’t address or have any provision that would attempt to lower the costs of health care, there exist a long term benefit and eventual reduction of health care cost but may be masked by inflation and the cost of health care in general.
When Americans are able to see general physician for checkup and early treatment of disease, the burden to the tax payer will be reduced from the cost of emergency room care if the same Americans do not receive the early treatment and insurance coverage. One of the highest cost or care is emergency care. If we can reduce the visits to the emergency care facility and provide early intervention for the now insured, the cost of health care will be manageable. The rate of health care expenses will also be reduced in a matter of time.
I am hoping that during this period, congress will work further to reduce the cost of medical malpractice insurance and increase accountability of care to all of the health care community. It’s a work in progress and we will get there assuming that the new congress in November can get their act together instead of further blocking any initiatives for discussion and proposals.

Posted by Werin | Report as abusive
 

@DVM Most American just don’t understand the bill and that’s why they don’t support. When told about the details of it most like what it’s designed to do. The Bill requires almost everyone to get health insurance, creating a larger pool of participants and therefore decreasing the cost per head. When the uninsured visit the hospital the Government picks part of the bill, adding to the national deficit. With the current situation only the very sick get and hold on to their health insurance. It is expensive to insure them and one of the reasons for rate hikes (I know Inflation is also a big factor). The Bill is not perfect but you can’t convince me that it’s not better than the status quo. I am hoping there will be future efforts to improve it instead of the stupid suggestion by the Republicans to repeal it.

Posted by Tical | Report as abusive
 

Want to watch health care costs drop like a rock??
Simple……. Cap ALL malpractice litigation awards to $200K, per procedure.
Out of every $1 of health care costs, take a guess as to how much goes to “CYA” to keep the lawyers at bay???
50 cents? 60 cents? 90 cents?

Posted by boogieman | Report as abusive
 

“..everyone has the right to healthcare regardless of economic bracket.”
Funny, I didn’t know that was in our Constitution.
Did I miss an Amendment??

Posted by boogieman | Report as abusive
 

Boogieman: we all realize the goodness of health for all. Hypothetically speaking you are going to pay along with many others who may be healthy for the small percentage who may be terribly sick and take up all the resources. In fact you and others and I will have to pay hefty sums for something that may never benefit us. The question to ask is how is it going to be done and at what cost?

Posted by jsg | Report as abusive
 

Interesting. I post a response linking to fact-based analysis, in an attempt to counter DVM’s negative spin, and it gets deleted? Be more careful Reuters. DVM’s post blatantly calls people “idiots”. Mine had no insults or threats, only truth and a promise to continue providing it. To follow up on that promise, here are the links again. Even a cursory read over the facts will show that DVM’s accusations are completely ungrounded:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collecti ons/health.cfm

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/stat ements/2010/mar/04/michele-bachmann/bach mann-says-democratic-health-care-bill-wo nt-low/

Posted by TrueIronPatriot | Report as abusive
 

while everyone applauds the idea of paying less, lets see how you all feel when you find yourselves waiting in line to receive your allocated share of care

Posted by agentinsure | Report as abusive
 

You get what you pay for…

Posted by juddfiduw | Report as abusive
 

Many of my families calls to the doctor are diagnosed over the phone and any prescriptions are done over the phone with a nurse practitioner which has worked well for my family. Assuming this is the case for many of us, wouldn’t it be a good idea for a company to hire a nurse practitioner and negotiate lower costs with the insurer because this service is made available in-house?

Posted by richmitch | Report as abusive
 

@agentinsure

Waiting in line for care is better than not being able to afford any in the first place.

Posted by anarcurt | Report as abusive
 

Are you a fool?

You are a fool if you believe that ending lifetime medical caps on individuals will lower costs. You are a fool if you believe that the many new mandated illnesses covered will lower your premiums. You are a fool if you believe that the tens of thousands of new federal employees hired will lower your taxes. You are a fool if you believe that adding millions of 25 and 26 year old “children” to parents policies will lower your premiums.

Are you a fool?

Posted by charliethompto | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/