More

Sebelius Warns Employers Not To Jack Up Health Care Costs

RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR   06/14/10 06:25 PM ET   AP

Sebelius Health Care Costs

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration had a message Monday for employers who want to keep federal bureaucrats from rewriting the rules for their company medical plans: Don't jack up costs for workers, and you won't have to worry about interference from the new health care law.

"What we don't want is a massive shift of costs to employees," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

She announced a new regulation that spells out how health plans that predate the health overhaul law can avoid its full impact. Meant to deliver on President Barack Obama's promise that people who like their current health coverage can keep it, the rule sets limits likely to become increasingly important as medical costs keep rising.

Plan changes that would cause a health plan to lose its "grandfathered" status and trigger new federal requirements include:

_ Dropping coverage for a particular health problem, for example, diabetes.

_ Increasing the proportion of insurance paid by workers, for example from 20 percent of the hospital bill to 25 percent.

_ Cutting back the share of premiums that the company pays by more than 5 percent.

_ Significantly increasing annual deductibles or co-payments paid by workers. For example, if an employer raises a $1,000 deductible by $500 over the next two years.

Workplace coverage is the mainstay of the nation's health insurance system, and will remain so under the new law. Consumer advocates said the regulation gives employers the flexibility to make needed changes, while protecting workers.

"If a plan changes in some significant way, or if it increases cost-sharing amounts, then that results in a very different plan – and it should not be grandfathered in," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group that supports the overhaul law.

Employers are wary.

"It's a big unknown," said Steve Wojcik, vice president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents human resources managers at major companies. "It definitely sets boundaries where plans have been used to considering all kinds of changes to both improve quality and control costs."

For example, Wojcik said it's unclear whether a plan would lose its protected status by making a change such as requiring counseling and dieting before approval of weight-loss surgery. And converting from traditional health insurance to a policy with a health savings account might lead to problems because the latter have significantly higher deductibles.

The administration's own analysis suggests it may not be easy for current plans to keep their special protected status. By 2013, two-thirds of small employer plans will have to relinquish their "grandfathered" status, along with 45 percent of large company plans, according to regulators' projections. Those plans will have to comply with a range of federal requirements on benefits.

The rule, effective immediately, is "a key part of a balanced approach" that will "provide Americans who like their plans with stability," Sebelius said.

It won't be a free ride for workers, said Wojcik. "Part of the bargain is that employers will be facing higher costs," he said. "The percentage share of the premiums will remain the same, but costs are going to go up for both sides in terms of dollars."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration had a message Monday for employers who want to keep federal bureaucrats from rewriting the rules for their company medical plans: Don't jack up costs for wo...
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration had a message Monday for employers who want to keep federal bureaucrats from rewriting the rules for their company medical plans: Don't jack up costs for wo...
Filed by Jeff Muskus  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 466
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
  1 of 2  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
verycold 07:31 PM on 06/15/2010
So what do you think about this? Company sits down with insurance company and if they keep the same plan the premiums will go up for the company by 15 percent. Now should the company pay the entire increase or should they equally share that increase with each employee? Do you think a rising yearly cost of 15 percent is sustainable for most companies?

So the alternative is to seek a second  Read More...
04:23 AM on 06/19/2010
The company I work for announced to all of us last week that come 2014 it will no longer offer health insurance to any of us because it will be cheaper to pay the fine than to continue with coverage. Thank's a lot Obama and Democrats, you "a"holes. The premium to cover my family is a little over $7K a year. My employer is paying $5k of it, I pay the other. How the hell am I suppose to pay a full premium myself from one of the companies on the great government exchange that is suppose to be set up?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:33 AM on 06/19/2010
Is there anyone who has experienced a reduction in premiums from their insurance company because medical use was low the previous year? If you have, please tell me the name of the company. That's what I would call insurance.
12:20 AM on 06/19/2010
Going after the employers is one thing. But it is the insurers and not neccessarily the employers who are jacking the prices up. She would probably being using her time better if she was berating the big companies-- for rate increases, for dropping customers for no reason at all, and all the other abuses by the big companies that are unlikely to end anytime soon.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6266678-503544.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/demons-and-demonization/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:24 PM on 06/18/2010
She is an idiot. Employers should bear the burden when they are struggling to stay alive? If companies have to absorb the cost there will less hiring and possibly more layoffs. I guess she thinks having healthcare is more important than having a job to support families. But that's OK because liberals will just dump more taxpayer money to cover the increased unemployed/underemployed. On this track there will be no more money. By the way, not all companies offer health insurance. But not to worry, soon the government will have control over all of our lives.
06:20 PM on 06/16/2010
Another day, another Obamacare lie exposed.

Obama stated unequivocally about a thousand times during the healthcare debate that, “if you like the plan you have, you can keep it.” However, under new regulations issued Monday, anywhere from 39 percent to 66 percent of employer plans will lose their “grandfathered status” by 2013, according to estimates included with the rules. For plans that do not fall under the grandfathered status, employers would have to find a plan that complies with the health care bill. Small businesses will be harder hit than large employers, losing grandfathered status for as few as 49 percent and as many as 80 percent of plans.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/16/new-rules-could-make-66-percent-of-employer-plans-lose-grandfathered-status/

EVERY WORD that comes out of Obama's mouth is a lie.
12:31 AM on 06/19/2010
You are right to say that she shouldn't being going after the employers because a lot of them are under the gun and in trouble themselves. But aren't the copanies engaged in making huge profits and shouldnt she be taking up the issue with them-- as well as other abuees by the industry. Point well takeh though, but just wondering....

Going after the employers is one thing. But it is the insurers and not neccessarily the employers who are jacking the prices up. She would probably being using her time better if she was berating the big companies-- for rate increases, for dropping customers for no reason at all, and all the other abuses by the big companies that are unlikely to end anytime soon.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6266678-503544.html

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/demons-and-demonization/
02:36 AM on 06/19/2010
Of course it's the insurers who are "jacking the prices up." The government has mandated that the insurance companies can't turn anyone down for coverage, can't drop anyone from coverage (unless they simply cease doing business), and have to pay all claims in full even for medical services related to pre-existing conditions. Under those conditions, why should the insurers be required to charge the exact same price as they did before the mandates went into effect? Private insurance companies exist to sell a product (policies) and to make a profit doing so, but Obama and Sebelius act as though the companies exist solely to pay for every American's healthcare needs regardless of the cost. Sebelius is nothing but a useless bureaucrat on an out-of-control power trip and anyone who thinks she's a hero for scolding these companies and telling them what they will and won't do is grossly mistaken. There is a limit to how much a company can be regulated by an anti-business government--eventually the regulatory burden will compel a company to either close up shop or pack up and leave. Obama and Sebelius are just on a quest to "regulate" private insurance companies to the point where they no longer exist.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arnth01
10:45 AM on 06/16/2010
I would like to offer a different finger to Sebelius
09:26 AM on 06/16/2010
Nationalized Public Option is competition and lowers cost. The wolf is still in charge of the hen house. Mandates without competition is not reform. Nuff said.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RFAstill
09:59 AM on 06/16/2010
only because it uses the same CMS payout schedule as Medicare/Medicaid
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:32 AM on 06/16/2010
They won't. The Healthcare takeover bill will reduce costs and lower premiums by 3000%. Remember?

So when can I expect my check?
06:12 AM on 06/16/2010
this is why the mandate is key to how this legislation works. if an insurance agency raises it's rates and lowers it's reimbursements, it will either pass those higher costs to the employee, which the President and his Administration and Congressional allies are indicating a hard stance against, then the costs would be passed to the employer, which fightens Republicans. because of the mandate, the need to have insurance means that an employer could just turn to the Exchange and find another insurance agency with cheaper costs. see? why isn't this obvious to more people?
05:55 AM on 06/16/2010
I'm sure the repugs will continue to support the insurance co's --and in turn the ins co's will continue to raise costs, and cover less, so all of them will win. Apply that same scenario to jobs, only in reverse--lower the wages, and no benefits for jobs they CAN'T export. They will win again. Who is paying all the taxes?--not the co's and not the wealthy--the people they plan to make all this money from are the people who WON'T have health care, or a fair wage, or even a job in the long run. There won't be ANY protection for the average American, because the folks who can't see the big picture insist on voting for the people who will hurt them the MOST. Even binoculars won't help these people, because they don't want to see, because it's just too UGLY to contemplate. All I can say is--you people brought it on yourselves---but we ALL will pay for it in the end.....
04:04 AM on 06/16/2010
Demo-rats want employers and taxpayers to take the hit for employee health care costs, not the employee himself/herself.

So guess what? I'm an employee, I'm going to demand my health care "rights" from Demo-rats, I want EVERYTHING first class and paid for, whether I need it or not. Because it's my right.

President Mom-jeans said so.
02:09 AM on 06/16/2010
So, Sebelius warns companies not to do wxactly what opponents of the bill said they would do. Odd that.
01:32 AM on 06/16/2010
Here is the key passage: "The vote Tuesday to repeal the mandate failed 187 to 230."

If the Republicans gain back control of the House, or don't, and are barely in the minority, then they will roll back health care bit by bit, piece by piece. The mandate is one element, and an important one. But that is a HUGE number of votes... 187.

The battle for health care reform is just starting. Bills by Dems to make it better will be bitterly fought. And bill by bill amendment by amendment Republicans will try and do away with some o the better stuff.

Besides mandates, there is the issue of Medicaid, preexisting conditions, and regulaton coming up. Regulaton is key. All the bad practices--- discrimination, rescission, rate increases are bound to be refought.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/09/business/la-fi-anthem-obama9-2010feb09

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/demons-and-demonization/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dlo2
11:59 PM on 06/15/2010
Sibelius doesn't want business to increase copays in an era when businesses are struggling to survive and keep their employees working? The stressors of this economic downturn increases illnesses like hypertension, heart disease illnesses where emotional stress plays a major role. Pre-existing conditions are bound to occur in such an economy as people seek refuge from layoffs and terminations. Sibelius needs to step back and look at the big picture and come up with something more realistic. This is a very difficult time for small and mid sized businesses and someone needs to step up and insure their survival and the critical importance for the federal government and every politician to support this sector and prevent another massive unemployment and economic downturn.
photo
Reedo1981
Please don't speak libberish
11:17 PM on 06/15/2010
Sebelius is an idiot. How about slowing the increases that employers are absorbing? No, not her. She warns employers not to pass along the increases.