Survey: Plenty of Uncertainty on Impact of Health-Care Overhaul

Almost half of private-company CEOs and CTOs surveyed by PricewaterhouseCoopers say health-care overhaul legislation may affect their business financially, while another 31% say it’s too soon to assess the impact.

The uncertainty isn’t totally surprising, since most of the provisions of the bill haven’t kicked in yet. But employers are still sussing out even the provisions that took effect Sept. 23 — or will in the next plan year.

Take the requirement that plans cover dependents until age 26, for example: 28% say they’re not certain of the impact (or didn’t answer the question). Another 29% said it would likely have no impact, and 43% said it would have either a slight or moderate/significant impact.

The executives surveyed said the increase in Medicare tax on high-income individuals would have the biggest financial impact — 31% reported it would have a moderate or significant impact. (Then again, 27% said it would likely have no impact.) The provision getting the greatest proportion of “no impact” votes — 66% –? was the penalty for companies with 50 or more employers that fail to provide minimal affordable coverage.

The new PwC survey covers the views of 224 CEOs and CTOs representing private companies averaging $257 million in annual sales.

Even without knowing the full financial impact of the law, some 70% say they’ll reevaluate their company’s overall benefit strategy and 60% plan to change benefits to comply with the law. More than half — 52% — say they’re likely to change employee contributions for medical coverage. That’s not too far off from a recent National Business Group on Health survey reporting 63% of big employers plan to increase the proportion of premiums paid by workers.

Further reading:

View the original article here

Survey: Plenty of Uncertainty on Impact of Health-Care Overhaul

Almost half of private-company CEOs and CTOs surveyed by PricewaterhouseCoopers say health-care overhaul legislation may affect their business financially, while another 31% say it’s too soon to assess the impact.

The uncertainty isn’t totally surprising, since most of the provisions of the bill haven’t kicked in yet. But employers are still sussing out even the provisions that took effect Sept. 23 — or will in the next plan year.

Take the requirement that plans cover dependents until age 26, for example: 28% say they’re not certain of the impact (or didn’t answer the question). Another 29% said it would likely have no impact, and 43% said it would have either a slight or moderate/significant impact.

The executives surveyed said the increase in Medicare tax on high-income individuals would have the biggest financial impact — 31% reported it would have a moderate or significant impact. (Then again, 27% said it would likely have no impact.) The provision getting the greatest proportion of “no impact” votes — 66% –? was the penalty for companies with 50 or more employers that fail to provide minimal affordable coverage.

The new PwC survey covers the views of 224 CEOs and CTOs representing private companies averaging $257 million in annual sales.

Even without knowing the full financial impact of the law, some 70% say they’ll reevaluate their company’s overall benefit strategy and 60% plan to change benefits to comply with the law. More than half — 52% — say they’re likely to change employee contributions for medical coverage. That’s not too far off from a recent National Business Group on Health survey reporting 63% of big employers plan to increase the proportion of premiums paid by workers.

Further reading:

View the original article here

Survey: Plenty of Uncertainty on Impact of Health-Care Overhaul

Almost half of private-company CEOs and CTOs surveyed by PricewaterhouseCoopers say health-care overhaul legislation may affect their business financially, while another 31% say it’s too soon to assess the impact.

The uncertainty isn’t totally surprising, since most of the provisions of the bill haven’t kicked in yet. But employers are still sussing out even the provisions that took effect Sept. 23 — or will in the next plan year.

Take the requirement that plans cover dependents until age 26, for example: 28% say they’re not certain of the impact (or didn’t answer the question). Another 29% said it would likely have no impact, and 43% said it would have either a slight or moderate/significant impact.

The executives surveyed said the increase in Medicare tax on high-income individuals would have the biggest financial impact — 31% reported it would have a moderate or significant impact. (Then again, 27% said it would likely have no impact.) The provision getting the greatest proportion of “no impact” votes — 66% –? was the penalty for companies with 50 or more employers that fail to provide minimal affordable coverage.

The new PwC survey covers the views of 224 CEOs and CTOs representing private companies averaging $257 million in annual sales.

Even without knowing the full financial impact of the law, some 70% say they’ll reevaluate their company’s overall benefit strategy and 60% plan to change benefits to comply with the law. More than half — 52% — say they’re likely to change employee contributions for medical coverage. That’s not too far off from a recent National Business Group on Health survey reporting 63% of big employers plan to increase the proportion of premiums paid by workers.

Further reading:

View the original article here

Survey: Plenty of Uncertainty on Impact of Health-Care Overhaul

Almost half of private-company CEOs and CTOs surveyed by PricewaterhouseCoopers say health-care overhaul legislation may affect their business financially, while another 31% say it’s too soon to assess the impact.

The uncertainty isn’t totally surprising, since most of the provisions of the bill haven’t kicked in yet. But employers are still sussing out even the provisions that took effect Sept. 23 — or will in the next plan year.

Take the requirement that plans cover dependents until age 26, for example: 28% say they’re not certain of the impact (or didn’t answer the question). Another 29% said it would likely have no impact, and 43% said it would have either a slight or moderate/significant impact.

The executives surveyed said the increase in Medicare tax on high-income individuals would have the biggest financial impact — 31% reported it would have a moderate or significant impact. (Then again, 27% said it would likely have no impact.) The provision getting the greatest proportion of “no impact” votes — 66% –? was the penalty for companies with 50 or more employers that fail to provide minimal affordable coverage.

The new PwC survey covers the views of 224 CEOs and CTOs representing private companies averaging $257 million in annual sales.

Even without knowing the full financial impact of the law, some 70% say they’ll reevaluate their company’s overall benefit strategy and 60% plan to change benefits to comply with the law. More than half — 52% — say they’re likely to change employee contributions for medical coverage. That’s not too far off from a recent National Business Group on Health survey reporting 63% of big employers plan to increase the proportion of premiums paid by workers.

Further reading:

View the original article here

Is the U.S. Health-Care System What’s Really Ailing Us?

You’ve probably heard that while the U.S. spends a whole lot of money on medical care, our citizens aren’t healthier than in other countries that spend far less.

In fact, a new study published online in Health Affairs finds that fifteen-year survival rates for U.S. 45- and 65-year-olds declined from 1975-2005, relative to a dozen other developed countries. The survival rate for 45-year-old women is now the lowest among those countries.

Explanations offered for the U.S.’s lagging health stats usually include our diverse population, smoking habits, obesity problems, car-crash and homicide rates and number of uninsured.

The authors of the new Health Affairs study, however, systematically go through those reasons and explain why they can’t explain the gap — for example, obesity rates were actually increasing more slowly during that 30-year period in the U.S. than in many other countries. “We can be confident about what isn’t responsible,” Peter Muennig, one of the study’s authors and an assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health, tells the Health Blog.

Muennig and his co-author, Sherry Glied, a Mailman professor who is on leave at HHS, speculate that the U.S. system itself, with its ever-rising rate of health-care spending, may be to blame. First, Muennig explains, as health costs rise, “the cost of insurance must also rise, putting it further and further out of the reach of employers” and of individuals. Coverage deteriorates, even for people who do have insurance.

In addition, the authors note that when health care eats up an ever-greater portion of the federal budget, funding for other programs that might improve survival — public-health efforts, education and community-development programs — gets squeezed out.

Moreover, the fee-for-service structure of the system, combined with an emphasis on specialty care, may not only boost spending but also lead to unnecessary procedures and perhaps “secondary complications.” And fragmented care “leads to poor communication between providers, sometimes conflicting instructions for patents, and higher rates of medical errors.” (The authors emphasize that it’s not known whether these factors are actually influencing the health of the population.)

“These findings undercut critics who might argue that the U.S. health-care system is not in need of major changes,” the authors write. The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund — which has advocated for many of the changes in the health-care overhaul law.

Do you agree with their theory?

Further reading:

Image: iStockphoto

View the original article here

Health-Care Overhaul May Help Cover 12 Million Young Adults

A new report says that by 2014 as many as 12.1 million now-uninsured young adults — of an estimated 14.8 million –  may get some kind of subsidized coverage under provisions of the new health-care overhaul law.

The Commonwealth Fund issue brief says 7.2 million young adults could gain health coverage under Medicaid, which is expanding under the health law, and that 4.9 million may receive subsidized private coverage under the new insurance exchanges. Those provisions don’t kick in until 2014.

Another million young adults are expected to be covered by their parents’ health policies between now and 2014, as a result of the now-in-effect provision requiring plans to cover adult children up to age 26.

About 30% of the 32 million additional people expected to come into the insurance fold as a result of various health-law provisions are between the ages of 19 and 29, the brief says. (The foundation advocated for many of the elements that eventually made it into the new law.)

Further reading:

View the original article here

Federal Judge Rules Health-Care Overhaul Provision is Constitutional

A federal judge yesterday refused to grant a request for a preliminary injunction against the health-care overhaul law, saying Congress’s imposition of the individual mandate isn’t unconstitutional.

Here’s the WSJ story. And here’s how our friends at the WSJ Law Blog described the decision by U.S. District Court Judge George Steeh:

Steeh?s analysis under the Commerce Clause was broken into two parts. First, he found that the economic decisions that the Act regulates as to how to pay for health care services affect the interstate health care market.

Next Steeh found that the individual mandate, the provision that requires everyone to have health coverage, was essential to the act?s larger goal of regulating ?the interstate business of health insurance.?

For all the details, read the rest of the Law Blog’s post.

Image: iStockphoto

View the original article here

Is the U.S. Health-Care System What’s Really Ailing Us?

You’ve probably heard that while the U.S. spends a whole lot of money on medical care, our citizens aren’t healthier than in other countries that spend far less.

In fact, a new study published online in Health Affairs finds that fifteen-year survival rates for U.S. 45- and 65-year-olds declined from 1975-2005, relative to a dozen other developed countries. The survival rate for 45-year-old women is now the lowest among those countries.

Explanations offered for the U.S.’s lagging health stats usually include our diverse population, smoking habits, obesity problems, car-crash and homicide rates and number of uninsured.

The authors of the new Health Affairs study, however, systematically go through those reasons and explain why they can’t explain the gap — for example, obesity rates were actually increasing more slowly during that 30-year period in the U.S. than in many other countries. “We can be confident about what isn’t responsible,” Peter Muennig, one of the study’s authors and an assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health, tells the Health Blog.

Muennig and his co-author, Sherry Glied, a Mailman professor who is on leave at HHS, speculate that the U.S. system itself, with its ever-rising rate of health-care spending, may be to blame. First, Muennig explains, as health costs rise, “the cost of insurance must also rise, putting it further and further out of the reach of employers” and of individuals. Coverage deteriorates, even for people who do have insurance.

In addition, the authors note that when health care eats up an ever-greater portion of the federal budget, funding for other programs that might improve survival — public-health efforts, education and community-development programs — gets squeezed out.

Moreover, the fee-for-service structure of the system, combined with an emphasis on specialty care, may not only boost spending but also lead to unnecessary procedures and perhaps “secondary complications.” And fragmented care “leads to poor communication between providers, sometimes conflicting instructions for patents, and higher rates of medical errors.” (The authors emphasize that it’s not known whether these factors are actually influencing the health of the population.)

“These findings undercut critics who might argue that the U.S. health-care system is not in need of major changes,” the authors write. The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund — which has advocated for many of the changes in the health-care overhaul law.

Do you agree with their theory?

Further reading:

Image: iStockphoto

View the original article here

Is the U.S. Health-Care System What’s Really Ailing Us?

You’ve probably heard that while the U.S. spends a whole lot of money on medical care, our citizens aren’t healthier than in other countries that spend far less.

In fact, a new study published online in Health Affairs finds that fifteen-year survival rates for U.S. 45- and 65-year-olds declined from 1975-2005, relative to a dozen other developed countries. The survival rate for 45-year-old women is now the lowest among those countries.

Explanations offered for the U.S.’s lagging health stats usually include our diverse population, smoking habits, obesity problems, car-crash and homicide rates and number of uninsured.

The authors of the new Health Affairs study, however, systematically go through those reasons and explain why they can’t explain the gap — for example, obesity rates were actually increasing more slowly during that 30-year period in the U.S. than in many other countries. “We can be confident about what isn’t responsible,” Peter Muennig, one of the study’s authors and an assistant professor of health policy and management at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health, tells the Health Blog.

Muennig and his co-author, Sherry Glied, a Mailman professor who is on leave at HHS, speculate that the U.S. system itself, with its ever-rising rate of health-care spending, may be to blame. First, Muennig explains, as health costs rise, “the cost of insurance must also rise, putting it further and further out of the reach of employers” and of individuals. Coverage deteriorates, even for people who do have insurance.

In addition, the authors note that when health care eats up an ever-greater portion of the federal budget, funding for other programs that might improve survival — public-health efforts, education and community-development programs — gets squeezed out.

Moreover, the fee-for-service structure of the system, combined with an emphasis on specialty care, may not only boost spending but also lead to unnecessary procedures and perhaps “secondary complications.” And fragmented care “leads to poor communication between providers, sometimes conflicting instructions for patents, and higher rates of medical errors.” (The authors emphasize that it’s not known whether these factors are actually influencing the health of the population.)

“These findings undercut critics who might argue that the U.S. health-care system is not in need of major changes,” the authors write. The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund — which has advocated for many of the changes in the health-care overhaul law.

Do you agree with their theory?

Further reading:

Image: iStockphoto

View the original article here