Obamacare Rationing “Excess Benefits” tax threatens health care plans of state and city workers
By Jennifer Popik, JD, Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics
Most state and city government health care plans, as well as many other plans, are soon to be undermined by one of the most serious of the multiple rationing provisions in the five-year old Obama Health Care law — the “excess benefits tax.”
A May 12, 2015, article entitled “The ‘Cadillac’ tax will soon hit many cities and states” published in Real Clear Markets and written by Robert Pozen of the non-partisan Brookings Institution observes
[U]nder current law, the
healthcare plans of many local governments will become subject in 2018
to … an excise tax on healthcare costs above specified annual amounts…
Most states and cities offer generous healthcare plans to their civil
servants during their working years and through their retirement until
they go on Medicare. In general, local governments offer their employees
a broad range of high-quality medical services with little or no
co-payments and minimal deductibles. And local governments pay most, if
not all, of the annual premiums for such generous healthcare plans.
Consequently, insurance companies will be forced to impose increasingly severe restraints on policy-holders’ access to medical diagnosis and treatment–limits that will not prevent setting broken legs and giving flu shots, but will make it harder and harder to get the often expensive medicines, surgery, and therapy essential to combat such life-threatening illnesses as cancer, heart disease, and organ failure.
According to Pozen,
In a 2013 letter, the deputy
mayor for operations in New York City estimated that the Cadillac tax
would cost the City $22 million in 2018, rising to $549 million in 2022.
Similarly, the Association of Washington Cities, which offers a pooled
plan to municipalities in Washington State, estimated that the
“Cadillac” tax could increase local taxes by $76 million over the decade
starting in 2018.
The question becomes, what can these employers do?According to Pozen
In most cases, local governments
will try to avoid the [excise benefits] tax by constraining the growth
of their healthcare costs. For example, local governments are likely to
ask public employees to contribute more of their insurance premiums,
make larger co-payments for doctor visits (except for preventative care)
and accept a narrower range of covered services.
The “narrower range of covered services” means that workers will have
access to fewer and less effective medical treatments – including
life-saving medical treatments. In short, their health care will be
rationed by the Obama Health Care Law.Not only are state and local municipalities deeply concerned over the future of these plans, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress are also troubled as well. Members of Congress, even members who support the health care law generally, are thinking of revisiting this portion of the law.
This excise benefits tax will soon hit not only city and state workers, but also many other employees with plans that are less likely than others to restrict the ability to obtain medical treatment. And due to a built-in mechanism in the Obama Health Care law, most health insurance plans, even ones now considered meager, will eventually be subject to the tax down the road.
David Nather, in his 2013 September 30 Politico article “How Obamacare affects businesses – large and small” explained the coming phenomenon:
For one thing, the thresholds [at
which the excess benefits tax will be imposed] were set in 2010, and
even though the law has a method for raising them if there’s a lot of
growth in health care spending, employers are still concerned that
they’ll get busted for offering fairly standard plans… [Thresholds will]
be linked to the increase in the consumer price index, but medical
inflation pretty much always rises faster than that. Think of the
Cadillac tax as the slow-moving car in the right lane, chugging along at
45 miles per hour. It may be pretty far in the distance, but if you’re
an employer and you’re moving along at a reasonable clip in the same
lane — say, 60 miles per hour — and you don’t slow down, you’re going to
run smack into it.
But that is just what the excess benefits tax intends to do–squeeze out plans that allow people access to sometimes expensive, but lifesaving, medical care.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, in the aggregate and over the long term we Americans can afford to devote an ever growing proportion of our income to saving our lives and promoting our health, because increasing productivity in producing other goods and services frees up resources that enable us to do so. See nrlc.org/uploads/medethics/AmericaCanAfford.pdf .
As more money is spent on health insurance by employers and individuals, cost-shifting keeps pace in making available health care for those who cannot themselves afford to pay its full cost. As NRLC has proposed, incorporating the cost of subsidies for growth in health care spending on behalf of those who genuinely cannot afford it into what employers and individuals pay for their own health insurance would result in a self-executing restraint on unsustainable growth in health care spending, while avoiding Obamacare-type arbitrary government limits that suppress what we are collectively able to, and desire to, spend to preserve the lives and health of our families.
Details can be found at nrlc.org/uploads/medethics/ObamacareAlternativeNRLC252015.pdf
For documentation on the way medical inflation exceeds the average rate given by the consumer price index (CPI), see nrlc.org/uploads/medethics/MedicalInflationOutpacesCPI.pdf .
Send to Kindle
Source: NRLC News
No comments:
Post a Comment