|
|
Post by rolando on May 6, 2015 16:19:48 GMT -5
Reading the email from the UBC today it reads of a whole load of nothing. What do others thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by frankly on May 7, 2015 11:19:22 GMT -5
There are some highly suspect assertions in that communication, in my humble opinion. One dubious claim is that "participant cost-sharing can reduce overall health care spending without, on average, harming health outcomes for most populations." I'm not a credentialed health economist, but it's not hard to find plenty of evidence that says otherwise. See this interesting post to the New York Times "Upshot" blog from earlier this week: www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/upshot/with-sickest-patients-cost-sharing-comes-at-a-price.html?mwrsm=Email&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0 Also, I've heard from two different friends who tried it that the special UBC email address through which we are invited to provide input DIDN'T WORK as of yesterday, and messages bounced back undelivered. Which makes me chuckle. |
|
|
|
Post by Just the Facts on May 7, 2015 12:19:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Reading on May 7, 2015 12:27:13 GMT -5
Leaving aside dueling research, my main takeaway from the email is that if there is a plan next year without deductible and coinsurance, it's going to cost A LOT more, either in much higher monthly costs or by limiting access to hospitals that are deemed expensive, or both. There seems to be a determination to save the money one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Interested on May 8, 2015 6:16:11 GMT -5
One thing that strikes me as truly odd is that the research links that are posted to Harvie are 5, 30, and 32 years old! Given the differing and evolving opinions that qualified experts have on this issue there must be something out there of more recent vintage. So weird. And yes, I agree with "Reading" above, perhaps any manner in which costs are shifted to participants is acceptable as long as the costs get shifted.
|
|
|
|
Post by rolando on May 8, 2015 12:35:44 GMT -5
I love how my health care is based "on averages"
|
|
|
|
Post by Coup de Ville on May 19, 2015 6:22:21 GMT -5
Having noted repeated references to the "cadillac tax", most recently in the UBC email, I decided to take some time to learn a bit about it. this is often referred to as some sort of sword of damocles that informs that nature of changes employers make to health coverage for their employees. The UBC email refers to the potential of "tens of millions"of dollars of potential tax liability: I am assuming that this pertains the cadillac tax. The tax apparently will begin to be assessed 2018 and will be calculated at 40% of total premium costs that fall above the the following thresholds: $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families (http://www.cigna.com/assets/docs/about-cigna/informed-on-reform/cadillac-tax-fact-sheet.pdf). These thresholds may be subject to change prior to implementation in 2018. Using Harvard's premium information provided at harvie.harvard.edu/system/files/Forms/Benefits/Medical_and_Dental/Medical_Program_Fact_Sheet.pdf I believe that the highest annual premiums are $5,592 for individuals and $19,524 for families. These amounts are 45% and 29% below the thresholds respectively. Math is not my strong suit to say the least but I think that this means that individual premiums would need to grow at an annual rate of 22% and family at a rate of 12% in order to reach the point where taxes would even begin. In order to reach the minimum "tens of millions" in tax liability (which I suppose is $20m) total premium costs would need to be $50m ABOVE the threshold costs by 2018 in order to result in $20m in related taxes. Given that total FY14 premium costs were $200m, and that were are considerably below the thresholds, this hardly seems likely. I won't be surprised if I am off on these calculations but I think I have the essence correct. |
|
|
|
Post by frankly on May 21, 2015 10:20:25 GMT -5
I think you're exactly right, Coupe de Ville. The Cadillac Tax is a bogeyman that lots of employers (not just Harvard) are using to justify benefits cuts that they want to make for other reasons and it's incredibly convenient to create a vague linkage to politicized and confused hot button views on "Obamacare." It is extremely unlikely that Harvard will ever pay a penny of "Cadillac tax." And there's absolutely no way Harvard will be exposed to tens of millions of dollars in liability under the ACA. Complete and cynical hogwash in that recent UBC email.
Furthermore, even if there were a slight risk of some Cadillac tax problems here, which there is not in my opinion, why start hammering us with cost-shifting three years in advance?
|
|
