Employers plan to shift more health-care costs to workers, survey reports
A 11-20-09 post provides in part:
My law office provides health insurance for our employees. Many, many small businesses do not. It is expensive, very expensive. Although my office has fewer than 50 workers and thus would be exempt under the Senate bill, a $750 annual fine hardly has me shacking in my boots considering my firm pays $900 or so a month per employee for an employee's health insurance.
In the proposed legislation the $750 has changed. In my case so has the "$900 or so." I just reviewed the figures the other day, and the most expensive employee -- not an attorney -- was costing $1,096. Small wonder for the reasons behind the remainder of this post.
The Washington Post notes:
Most big employers plan to shift a larger share of health-care costs to their workers next year, according to a survey released Thursday.
Many say they may charge more to cover spouses, tighten eligibility standards for their health plans and dispense financial rewards or penalties based on the results of certain lab tests. At some companies, overweight employees could be excluded from the most desirable plans.
Meanwhile, employees at many companies can expect significantly higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments, according to the annual survey by the National Business Group on Health, a coalition of big employers, and Towers Watson, a consulting firm that advises companies on employee benefits.
People who work for large corporations have some of the most stable and comprehensive medical coverage in the nation. They are insulated from insurance industry practices at the heart of the Washington health-care debate, such as having their policies rescinded after getting sick or being denied coverage based on preexisting conditions. However, the new survey is a reminder that even people who are satisfied with their insurance plans cannot count on a continuation of the status quo.
With or without reform, coverage at big corporations is likely to become less affordable, and it could become more restrictive.
The "with or without reform" certainly applies to the current proposed legislation since it unfortunately seeks to expand coverage without first attacking the cost aspect of health care.
My law office provides health insurance for our employees. Many, many small businesses do not. It is expensive, very expensive. Although my office has fewer than 50 workers and thus would be exempt under the Senate bill, a $750 annual fine hardly has me shacking in my boots considering my firm pays $900 or so a month per employee for an employee's health insurance.
In the proposed legislation the $750 has changed. In my case so has the "$900 or so." I just reviewed the figures the other day, and the most expensive employee -- not an attorney -- was costing $1,096. Small wonder for the reasons behind the remainder of this post.
The Washington Post notes:
Most big employers plan to shift a larger share of health-care costs to their workers next year, according to a survey released Thursday.
Many say they may charge more to cover spouses, tighten eligibility standards for their health plans and dispense financial rewards or penalties based on the results of certain lab tests. At some companies, overweight employees could be excluded from the most desirable plans.
Meanwhile, employees at many companies can expect significantly higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments, according to the annual survey by the National Business Group on Health, a coalition of big employers, and Towers Watson, a consulting firm that advises companies on employee benefits.
People who work for large corporations have some of the most stable and comprehensive medical coverage in the nation. They are insulated from insurance industry practices at the heart of the Washington health-care debate, such as having their policies rescinded after getting sick or being denied coverage based on preexisting conditions. However, the new survey is a reminder that even people who are satisfied with their insurance plans cannot count on a continuation of the status quo.
With or without reform, coverage at big corporations is likely to become less affordable, and it could become more restrictive.
The "with or without reform" certainly applies to the current proposed legislation since it unfortunately seeks to expand coverage without first attacking the cost aspect of health care.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 2:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home