From "health care" to "who cares?"

by Prometheus 6
April 9, 2005 - 7:12am.
on Health

HMOs in Unstable Condition: Members Bolt to Other Plans
Preferred provider organizations offer greater choice, and employers like them because they can shift rising costs to workers.
By Lisa Girion
Times Staff Writer
April 9, 2005

HMOs, once the top choice for Americans who get healthcare as a job perk, are so last century.

Tightly controlled health maintenance organizations have steadily lost ground over the last decade to preferred provider organizations, which offer greater choice of physicians and hospitals and direct access to specialists —  though at a higher price.

HMOs garnered only 25% of the employer-based health benefits market last year, down from a high of 31% in 1996, according to a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a Menlo Park, Calif.-based think tank. During the same period, PPOs nearly doubled their market share to 55%.

One of the most talked-about new plans is Tonik, launched a few months ago by the California Blue Cross subsidiary of

WellPoint Inc., the nation's largest health insurer. Directed toward people in their 20s, Tonik seeks a coveted group insurers call the "young invincibles" because they are rarely sick.

The company's marketing campaign looks nothing like the button-down image the Blues have long presented. Silhouetted snowboarders careen across Tonik's website, on which medical plans have hipster names such as the "calculated risk-taker" and the "part-time daredevil." Its monthly premiums are as low as $64, with out-of-pocket deductibles as high as $5,000 (the "thrill-seeker").

The most controversial feature of Tonik is its exclusion of any maternity coverage.

Blue Cross says Tonik serves a niche of the uninsured market   people who are put off by high premiums because they rarely see a doctor. "Because of their age, attitude and culture, this group wasn't interested in paying for maternity coverage," said Michael Chee, a Blue Cross spokesman. "Maternity is one of the higher-cost items to price a policy for, so taking it out allowed us to price it lower."

Critics say such plans allow insurers to cherry-pick the healthiest consumers but offer skimpy benefits. "The market is likely to turn PPOs from the Cadillac of plans into Pintos that might cost less but have much less protection," said Jerry Flanagan, a spokesman for the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Consumer & Taxpayer Rights.

"The problem when you exclude benefits like maternity coverage is you don't have fair risk pools in the marketplace anymore," said Astrid Meghrigian, a lawyer for the California Medical Assn. "People have babies on [an HMO plan] and then go back into a cheaper PPO."

This plan-hopping has pushed a rising tide of people with costly health problems such as diabetes, morbid obesity and heart failure onto HMOs, whose costs are capped.

"What's strained the HMOs in terms of economics," PacifiCare Chief Executive Howie Phanstiel said, "is the young, healthy people going into PPOs."

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.prometheus6.org/trackback/9451

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by dwshelf on April 9, 2005 - 4:10pm.

The economics of health care will continue to rationalize.

Before WWII, everyone paid their own health care.

Employer paid health care rose during the boom '50s and '60s. This was the era of "infinite health care". Doctors were imagined to be above being driven by money. But it quickly became apparent, if you let a person set his salary, he'll set it high. Way high. American doctors became, by nearly an order of magnitude, the best paid in the world.

The rationalization process began in ernest during the '80s, as employers began to do business with the HMOs and then the PPOs. However, a crucial bit of irrationality remains to be addressed: some employees are far more expensive than others to provide medical care to. This will ultimately crack, as companies which figure out a way to mitigate if not eliminate that subsidy are able to out-compete those who don't.

Think of if this way. Say an employee doing job 'x' is worth, without insurance, $60,000 per year, and our company needs ten such employees. If we hire ten reasonable-cost employees, we can insure them for $500/year each, average compensation to the employee is then $59,500. If, however, one of those employees consumes $25,000 per year, year in and year out, then the cost to insure the ten employees will be $25,000 + 9x$500, or $29,500 per year. Divided over the ten employees, their pay will drop to $57,050 to remain competitive.

And that company faces a competitive disadvantage in attracting employees. Ultimately, the company will rationalize this situation, or it will perish in the face of competition which does so.

Submitted by dwshelf on April 9, 2005 - 4:22pm.

I believe that "Tonik" as referenced in P6's posting is one of the futuristic models.

Health care will be divided into:
1. Routine stuff which you pay for yourself. This includes childbirth and, for example, most end of life cancers, diabetic care, pretty much anything predictable.
2. Expensive, but unpredictable things which you buy insurance to cover. (for example, Tonik).
3. Welfare coverage for people who can't afford some required service.

The important change is the rise in that category 1. Employers may manage some kind of tax advantaged individual medical fund which is largely supplied by the employee (with the difference being paid to healthy employees as taxable income, and unhealty employees becoming more personally responsible).

Submitted by dwshelf on April 9, 2005 - 4:28pm.

Not that I intended to post three responses but...
Check out the google ads.

How's that work, p6?

[P6: anything that even LOOKS like spam must go]

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 9, 2005 - 7:39pm.

I believe that "Tonik" as referenced in P6's posting is one of the futuristic models.

It's one of the models that will be used in te future."Futuristic" implies improvement when it's actually a throwback to a previous state of affairs...except you could actually afford medication back then.

Submitted by dwshelf on April 10, 2005 - 4:51am.

[P6: anything that even LOOKS like spam must go]

All I did was copy/paste the "Ads by Gooooogle" which appear along with this thread. The ads are usually, well, strange looking political sites. This time here are real businesses advertising right here on P6, and it seems beyond coincidence that we're discussing one of them. Some mechanism put that together.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 10, 2005 - 7:26am.

Yeah, the mechanism is called "Google." That's what Google ads do.

I know you meant no spam.

Post new comment

*
*
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

*

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.