"Pretty to Think So" -- Latest EBN Column

Print the article

This entry was posted on 10/5/2007 4:46 PM and is filed under Health Care,Benefit Financing and Accounting,Views and Vents Column.

If you're a registered user of the Employee Benefit News site, you can leave a comment that will appear in the publication by clicking here. Or, simply scroll to read the column below.

At a recent meeting with a prospective client, I was pitching ideas to reduce health care costs when she cut things off.

“We’re not concerned about that,” she declared. “Our costs are starting to trend down.”

When I asked if claims were lower, she said no. Was her renewal quote less? No. Were there improvements in demographics or risk profiles? Still no.

So why did she think costs were declining?

“My consultant says what we're doing seems to be working,” she replied. “And everything I read says the same thing — health care costs have topped out.”

In her view, we’ve turned a corner, and the best thing to do was simply to stay the course. She saw no need to change strategy, or, for that matter, advisers.

The Twilight Zone

The thought that health costs are coming down may reflect a “parallel universe,” but it’s hardly an isolated view. Many employers, prompted by brokers and consultants, now believe, as recent EBN headlines announced, that their "Focus on Plan Design [is] Paying Off" and that, nationwide, "Medical Costs [are] Declining."

Now, I’m not picking on EBN, whose articles have been balanced and clear. The problem is the mainstream media, which doesn’t really “get” benefits. They’ve led many to conclude that health costs are actually abating.

In fact, recently, in briefing managers about upcoming benefit changes, I was confronted by someone waving an article from his local paper.

“Why are you increasing our premiums 15%,” he asked, “when it says here that health costs are going up only 6% this year?” 

Facing Facts

Data are easily misconstrued, creating impressions that are outrageously wrong.

In this case, it’s the facts that are outrageous. What most employers have been doing with benefits is not working. Medical costs are both on the rise and poised to increase even faster. And most plan-design decisions will not “pay off,” but only ensnare employers in a steeper cost spiral.

The truth is we're not turning a corner. We’re about to veer off the road.

A Closer Look

A new study from Towers Perrin claims that U.S. health care expenses will increase by only 7% in 2008 — “among the lowest [growth rates] of the last five years.” But few have noticed how skewed the data are — starting with precisely who can expect to see this low renewal rate.

According to Towers, its study “represents primarily Fortune 1000 companies with operations in numerous locations . . . [and] health benefits for the 315 participating companies [of] nearly $30 billion.” So the projections are hardly applicable to average employers — and certainly not to my prospect, with about 1,000 FTE’s and a budget that’s invisible compared to the TP composite.

The study’s skewed further by what Towers terms different levels of “performance” in managing megasized plans. The unfortunate “lower performers” typically incur substantial additional costs —of about $1,500 per employee, per year.

If things are this much worse for corporate behemoths, imagine the plight of a small or mid-sized employer — without the resources or leverage of a “top-performing” Fortune 1000 benefits department.

Hewitt’s cost report, cited in EBN, projects a more realistic, but still unrepresentative, increase of 8.7%. Still, it says, employee costs will jump by 10%. In fact, Towers notes, their contributions will rise at rates “roughly more than twice that of [their] annual merit increases.” 

Off the Charts

The latest Segal Company report agrees that things are getting better — for employers. In this “fifth consecutive year of declining medical trends,” Segal observes, “trends for prescription drug coverage are projected to decelerate most.” You'd think this was fabulous news.

But you'd be wrong.

The firm’s projections may be lower for its client base, but they’re higher than those of Hewitt and Towers. Segal sees increases of about 11% for all plans, including consumer-driven. As for “decelerating” prescription costs, Segal projects increases of — about 11%. Though arguably better compared to prior years, it’s hardly cause for celebration.

A closer look confirms that the factors that most affect benefit costs are arching ever-upward. Health care inflation continues to outpace general inflation by large margins — between 68% and 321%, depending on medical service. And, despite employers’ efforts, utilization is increasing at a steady clip — by 3.2% (for hospital stays), 4.3% (prescriptions), and 5.5% (doctor visits). The conditions creating “cost creep” are as calamitous as ever — and worse if you have an aging workforce, retiree coverage, or employees who view benefits as near-entitlements.

Wrong End of the Telescope

The reality is that the average reader of this column is probably staring at 2008 cost increases of 9% to 15%. You’re probably not comforted by learning that “high-performers” in the Fortune 1000 pony up a bit less. Instead, you face tough benefit decisions, and have no doubt learned, through experience, that cost-shifting and design-tweaking don’t produce sustainable savings.

In fixating on the percent of cost increase instead of what’s driving the charges, we’ve been conned into looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The industry wants us to focus on what we can’t control rather than on what we can. Our brokers and consultants find it easier, and more profitable, to reassure than to challenge us. And, admittedly, it does make us feel somewhat better about our prospects.

In The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway’s main character was presented with a similarly bleak reality — “spun” with a similarly positive twist and similarly specious claims. But Hemingway heroes were always well-grounded. 

In one of the most understated closing lines in American literature, the protagonist listened to the hype, stared out the window, and calmly took in all that he’d been told.

“Yes," [he] said.  
“Isn't it pretty to think so?”

Of course, the line had nothing to do with our health care system, or the thought that we’ll all ultimately be okay.

But it would sure be pretty to think so.

 



 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • Trackbacks are closed for this entry.
Comments

    • 10/9/2007 12:03 PM T. Stahl wrote:
      I liked the article, but couldn't post a comment on the site. I think the major consulting firms have called this one wrong. Our insurer wanted a 25% increase in indemnity plan premiums next year, which caused us to cancel the option (we have two others). I don't see better news ahead, either. The lady in your article has got to be kidding herself.
      Reply to this
    • 10/9/2007 12:07 PM Mike R. wrote:
      FYI, our medical costs are going up more than 15%, with one plan over 20%. We are introducing major cost-shifting and our employees are not liking us a lot right now.
      Reply to this
    • 10/9/2007 8:35 PM Don Levit, CLU, ChFC wrote:
      Corey: Thanks for providing your thoughts. Insurance premiums simply reflect the underlying costs. Administrative costs are only a minor part of the problem. Therein lies the disingenuous opinions of the single-payer crowd.

      We are at a point where health care premiums exceed many people's ability to pay. Subsidizing an already-too-expensive premium simply exacerbates the problem. Expanding CHIP to those making $80,000 a year is a good example of exacerbating the problem.

      While we certainly would desire for insurance to cover our liabilities, and, thus, not force one into dire financial problems, that unfortunate scenario may be necessary to either force the prices of medical services down, or keep certain medical services from being available to the public.
      Reply to this
    • 10/9/2007 8:38 PM McLean Robbins wrote:
      Great column!
      Reply to this
    • 10/10/2007 6:56 PM Stan wrote:
      I can see taking on the Towers and Hewitt reports, those pompous windbags. But why go after Segal? Using the link you provided, I read their report and found it to be fairly moderate in tone, and the increases they project don't seem that far from those that you yourself make. What's your beef with Segal?
      Reply to this
      1. 10/10/2007 7:12 PM Corey Sherman wrote:
        Hi, Stan. I appreciated your feedback, which led me to reread the column, as well as the Segal report that prompted your inquiry. With all respect, Stan, I didn't feel that I'd "gone after" Segal at all. As the column noted, Segal's projections were more reasonable compared to those of Towers and Hewitt (or, for that matter, those we cited in this blog back in June). Of the three firms referenced in the column, Segal's study is clearly the most useful for mainstream employers.

        The Segal report also has another virtue: its detailed analysis. Segal provides data on the individual components that drive overall health care costs, which I was able to cite in the column. Though we differ over what the data mean, I think it's great that Segal provides such detail for readers to draw their own conclusions. Neither Hewitt nor Towers is as forthcoming.

        Segal has certainly made great strides in recent years. The company, as some of you may know, is attempting to transition from a small, niche firm, into a consultancy with depth and substance. Its health trend study (see the EBN column for a link to the report) is certainly evidence of continued movement in the right direction.
        Reply to this
    • 10/11/2007 6:45 AM Rick Byrne wrote:
      Good points made here, but you came close to one and missed it. When employer share of costs is improving, but most of that improvement comes from pharma, then employee share of costs will not improve as quickly or as much. That's because employee copays on pharmacy are fixed at $5/$10 or $10/$35/$50, depending on the company plan. They still pay that same amount every month for a maintenance med for a chronic condition, even if the employer share of the same drug goes down thanks to the PBM getting a better deal on volume or contracting or rebates or whatever PBMs get you.
      Reply to this
    • 10/12/2007 1:01 PM Jay Postma wrote:
      Another thought-provoking article with good points. With the population continuing to age, no imminent slowdown in newly found diseases and syndromes that keep people awake at all hours of the night (and probably sleeping on the job), increasing lifespan, etc. ... perhaps we have an opportunity to solve multiple problems at once. Congress could allow illegals / undocumented workers to remain. Congress could also increase the number of highly skilled immigrants (helping further increase business expansion here). And Congress could even maintain the tax cuts (given to those who actually pay taxes) that has caused the economy to expand by 8 million jobs in the past 5 years (despite 9/11 and the war on terror). All those new taxpayers could then subsidize our insurance until we're dead and then return to debate and procrastination.

      Good times, good times.
      Reply to this
    • 10/17/2007 11:14 PM Richard D. Quinn wrote:
      No matter how you slice it, cost remain the number one problem in health care and anyone who thinks differently is in a world of their own. Listen to the politicians and you would think it is lack of coverage, but what is the cause of most of the lack of coverage?

      Richard D. Quinn, Editor
      http://www.quinnscommentary.com
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.