Skip to main content

Two Views Of the Future Of Employer-Sponsored Health Coverage

RE: the future of health insurance, Booz&Co calls forecasts of the demise of employer-sponsored coverage "greatly exaggerated."

I hope they're right; I fear they're not.  Believing that large employers will continue offering coverage - at increasingly ruinous rates - out of a "sense of moral responsibility" is pure fantasy.   They saw no moral obligation when the issue was off-shoring jobs and they won't in this case either.  Nor, with slow-growth economic conditions projected to last as far as the gimlet eye can see, do they believe  themselves in much of a battle to "attract and retain talent."  

Worse, they're herd-followers.  The more organizations dumping health insurance, the more we'll see jumping on the "we're doing it to stay competitive" bandwagon.  And so much for that.

Small employers probably do have a larger sense of obligation, God bless 'em.  Their issue is health coverage's sheer unaffordability.  They'd like to but they can't - unless health care's cost trajectory is somehow tamed.   Anyone want to take that bet?

Here's the opposite viewpoint from Kaiser Health News, featured in a post of mine from back in November, 2010 titled "What Would Happen If Employers Walked Away From Health Coverage?"

It ain't pretty.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved