To combat all the rumors and myths out there, the House Committee on Education & Labor has put together an interactive graphic to help folks figure out how the House Plan would effect them and their employers.
It looks excellent. Comments?
Health Beat by Maggie Mahar
I clicked on “yes” then “employer” insurance. I got a seemingly contradictory screen with three bullets. The first one said “Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. You will be able to keep your current plan and doctors.” The second bullet says “Most employers have already met the standards..and will not require any changes.”
The second bullet is the accurate one. The first is political happy talk. Why not reassure people by saying that your plan would only stay the same or get better (richer benefits) not worse? I assume any required changes would be to reduce cost-sharing or expand covered services.
I guess that would open the door to the possibility that the employer would drop coverage entirely. The person would then get access to the public plan, but the scenario isn’t quite as reassuring and would probably cost more out of pocket.
Reassurance could perhaps be provided by reference to Massachusetts, where there is actually an increase in the number of individuals with employer-based insurance.
Not sure if that reaction is any help at all.
j.d.
Point taken.
The truth is that the vast majority of large employers won’t have to make any changes –except that, by 2018, they will no longer be able to put annual or lifetime caps on coverage. (You find this out if you click on “how employers will be affected.”
Putting the emphasis on “If there are any changes, your plan will only get better” is a good idea. For examples, click on “how employers would be affected.”
j.d. and others – I am a nurse in MA and know that many of the “newly covered” under employer insurance are NOT happy with it — the plan have large costs for the employee, both for premium share and for deductibles and co-pays. People signed up to avoid the tax fines and to avoid being “law breakers” under the mandate, and in response to a heavy-handed intimidation ad campaign to get folks to comply with the mandate.
As you might infer, I am displeased — to put it mildly — with the Mass. Plan. It is largely sham reform as it does next to nothing to address urgent cost control needs.
No surprise that the front page of the Boston Globe today:
9/16/09 by Robert Weisman
“Health costs to rise again
Major health insurers in Massachusetts plan to raise premiums by 10 percent next year, prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift extra costs to workers…. ”
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/09/16/health_insurers_plan_10_rise_in_rates/
In national reform we must insist on a strong public insurance option that uses Medicare rates. This will be a major step toward cost control and toward treating health care as a public good and a human right. In my opinion as a nurse and as a member of a civilized society, I think that improved Medicare-for-All is the gold standard of reform we should be working toward, for both clinical and for cost reasons.