ObamaCare's Parade of Bad News Continues: Some Employers May Self-Insure, Leaving Others With Higher Premiums

Another week, another ObamaCare glitch—and another reason that it may cause some health premiums to spike: On Monday, The New York Times reported that state health insurance officials are concerned that businesses with young and relatively healthy employees might choose to avoid many of the law's regulations by self insuring.
The problem is that when firms with lots of young, healthy workers self-insure, other employers buying into group health insurance plans are left with a smaller, relatively sicker group of workers. And that translates into higher premiums.
Here's a simplified way to think about it: If a group insurance plan had covered 100 people, some older and sicker and some younger and healthier, and 15 of the youngest and healthiest suddenly choose to opt out in order to start their own separate insurance pool, that leaves the membership of the original insurance plan older, sicker, smaller, and more expensive.
ObamaCare gives small employers with healthy workforces an incentive to jump ship and insure themselves. Via the Times:
Experts say the law makes self-insurance more attractive for smaller employers. When companies are self-insured, they assume most of the financial risk of providing health benefits to employees. Instead of paying premiums to insurers, they pay claims filed by employees and health care providers. To avoid huge losses, they often sign up for a special kind of "stop loss" insurance that protects them against very large or unexpected claims, say $50,000 or $100,000 a person.
Such insurance serves as a financial backstop for the employer if, for example, an employee is found to have cancer, needs an organ transplant or has a premature baby requiring intensive care.
In a report to clients last year, SNR Denton, a law firm, wrote, "Faced with mandates to offer richer benefits with less cost-sharing, small and midsize employers in particular are increasingly considering self-insuring."
Premiums will probably go up for a non-trivial number of individuals as a result of the way ObamaCare deals with employers who self insure. Given the double-digit premium spikes we're already seeing in states across the country, that's worrying enough.
The larger thread here, though, is that we're once again seeing that ObamaCare's design is pretty clunky, at best. From a purely practical perspective, the law looks like a mess. Every week or so we see another big report on some flaw or implementation challenge: The exchanges are hard to build, estimates of how many employers will eventually drop employee coverage have been revised upward, part time employees are seeing their hours limited, premiums are rising, states are declining to run the exchanges or participate in Medicaid, a number of big employers had to be given waivers in order to keep offering health insurance, the high risk pools were more expensive per beneficiary than expected and served fewer people, some insurers are warning that they may not participate in the law's exchanges—you get the idea. You don't, on the other hand, see a lot of things going especially well for the law, unless you count the victory at the Supreme Court. So sure, ObamaCare is surviving. But it's not exactly thriving.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ewwww!
Muy better image:
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/.....rtrait.gif
It is awfully cult of personality-y isn't it?
They could have made the image ten times larger, so everybody would get the point.
Like Principal Blackman?
Quelle surprise!
Big brother cares about your health
Now we have his stupid face being beamed at us from projection screens? Big Brother, indeed.
"Brother"
RACIST!!!
Obviously failures of the free market. The only solution is single payer.
T O N Y agrees.
Single-payer legal care, with government deciding what type of law new attorneys will practice, and where they'll practice it.
I'd love to hear the spluttering of the bar if that was really proposed. Think Amash would do such on a lark?
Another perverse consequence....
Employers are incentivized to fire older sicker workers to reduce their health care costs. They don't even have to feel guilty about it because the older sicker workers can get subsidized, "community rated" insurance on the exchanges.
But that would be illegal under both the age discrimination statutes and the ADA. They can do that and not feel guilty. But they won't feel good after the wrongful termination judgement.
But that would be illegal under both the age discrimination statutes and the ADA.
Prove it. Policy manuals are so damn thick that, just like three felonies a day, it's getting to be nearly impossible to follow all the rules. So the rules, like the law, are selectively enforced depending upon the offender.
What is more likely happening is that employers aren't hiring people who are over 40. That way they don't have to fire people who would drive up their health care costs. They just don't hire them.
Selective enforcement is strong evidence of bias. If you never enforce a rule and then one decide that because the old guy or the black guy did it, it is an offense warranting termination, you are in a lot of trouble in court.
In reference to my comment on your other post: it's very hard to prove that people aren't hiring someone simply because of their age. This comes to me from a couple of my family who are lawyers.
In fact, they also tell me that law firms are flagrant offenders of this regulation.
It is very difficult to win a wrongful hiring case. Wrongful termination cases in contrast are much easier.
Thus, the saying "Hard to fire, hard to hire."
and how long will it take adn how much will you spend pursuing your case? I suspect the firing agency knows that.
ADEA doesnt kick in until companies have 20 employees.
What is more likely to happen is that firms don't fire older workers in the first place since they are much less likely to be sued for not hiring someone than they would be for firing someone.
I should have read this before commenting.
This is exactly what will happen. It happens already, actually, but the practice will no doubt become more prevalent in the future.
I think it'll be worse than that.
I think when layoff time comes around, I think people with chronic health problems will be the first let go.
ObamaCare making life harder for sick unemployed people?
Yes we can.
What will happen is that whenever there are layoffs, they will consider which employees are costing them the most and lay them off first. As it happens older workers also get paid more, so they already have a reason to lay them off first.
Then they selectively hire young healthy people when things improve.
Every employer I've had since I graduated college has self-insured. I wonder if that's an artifact of my industry?
Yeah, my big ol' employer is self insured. Auto industry standard, primarily due to size and massive cash flow that makes it practical.
We can save Obamacare. Clap if you believe!
The best thing about Obamacare is that it passed by what amounted to a single vote in a straight party line vote. That means every single Democratic Senator is personally responsible for not killing it.
Relatedly, it means that they can't pass off every single stupid result and feature as something that was a Republican idea / necessary to get Republican votes.
no, but they'll default to the it was a Republican idea talking point.
See, we took the idea of the party that's we've spent a lifetime deriding as idiotic, passed it without their votes, just so we could prove how smart we are. or something like that.
Or they'll get away with blaming the Repubs for not fixing all the problems inside the framework of the law (IOW, without dumping it).
I actually had a prog tell me a while ago that was what the GOP was for, to make the ideas of the Democrats work.
The larger thread here, though, is that we're once again seeing that ObamaCare's design is pretty clunky, at best.
The even larger thread here, though, is that any centralized design will be pretty clunky, at best.
"The even larger thread here, though, is that any centralized design will be pretty clunky, at best."
Pretty much; mosquito? Reach for a 5# hammer and if the wall suffers, tough.
we're once again seeing that ObamaCare's design is pretty clunky, at best. From a purely practical perspective, the law looks like a mess.
If you've never looked at the actual legislation, check it out. You will be horrified.
Better to not try to comprehend the secrets man was not meant to know.
+1 H.P. Lovecraft
Anyone else looking at this as one of the few bright spots, honestly? Older, sicker people should pay higher premiums than younger, healthier ones.
Unfortunately it also drags in the younger, healthier people who work alongside them at the same company.
ObamaCare was supposed to do a couple of things.
One of them was that it was supposed to make it easier for people who already have health problems to get insurance.
It's failing at that miserably.
Wait til those people go to the exchanges to get their affordable ObamaCare--it's failing miserably at making healthcare more affordable too.
There's always the "market will find a way" concept. Whatever distortions you create, the market is going to seek a mechanism that avoids paying for people with pre-existing conditions. Whatever perverse incentives and unintended consequences are byproducts of that.
HazelMeade| 2.20.13 @ 2:13PM |#
"There's always the "market will find a way" concept."
As we learned from the 2008 melt-down, while there's a lot of ruin in the market, it *is* possible to distort it far enough to get a mess.
From a purely practical perspective, the law looks like a mess. Every week or so we see another big report on some flaw or implementation challenge
If they had taken the time to do it "right" or it even read it, it never would have passed. And they knew that. Their only hope was to shove it thru as fast as possible.
And this is the clusterfuck that is the result.
Peter's all over Obamacare. Virtually no one else in the media is. Ergo, Peter is either racist or a liar.
/derpity derp
He's both. And not only that, he spends a lot of his free time playing video games. I won't be surprised to hear about him shooting up the reason offices at some point.
The "essential benefits" final rule dropped today
http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/O.....084_PI.pdf
149 pages of govspeak, ugh. Bring on the $500/hr ERISA lawyers.
The reason this thing appears to be some kind of Frankenstein's monster is because it is. It was not written as a single law but a conglomeration of individual political demands. Every politician who voted for it did read it. Ok, they read the little piece in it that was for them. The rest? Who cares, they got their little piece.
Just like Obummer himself - surviving not thriving.
Oh imagine that. Top Men carefully craft a law so that everyone has to pull their "fair share" and then the millions of peons find a bunch of ways to circumvent the intent of said law. It's almost as if a small cadre of intellectual elites don't stand a chance against the collective wisdom of the masses. Who could have predicted this outcome!?
Wasn't there an article yesterday saying that Obama is going to try to make it illegal to self-insure so that employers don't "evade" the law?
(You know, by following it. Since every instance where someone follows the law but creates an unintended consequence is painted by the administration and its press defenders as an "evasion" instead of an Obama fuckup.)
Because even though self-insuring with a stop loss provides medical care coverage to your employees, that's not good enough. It was never about providing medical care coverage to your employees. It was about subsidizing community rating. Since you aren't shoveling premium money into the maw of the beast that Obama wants to use to transfer money from young and healthy people to older and sicker people, you're "evading" the true intent of the law.
I've been self employed and (virtually) self insured for many years. I have a catastrophic policy that only kicks in after $10k of expenses. I pay cash for all our doc visits, dentists, tests, etc. The fees I pay for our visits are usually discounted 30%-70% by physicians happy to do a simple fee for service transaction. We typically shop for the best service and price. If its a simple blood test, there are at least 4 labs who do exactly the same service. All are anxious to compete for our hassle free business. I also have a heath savings account in which I maintain most of the $10k. We do not run to the emergency room for scratches and sniffles. We use our heath care dollars as if they were our own (and they are). In my mind, this is what "insurance" was intended to be. I also think this is the true answer to our healthcare system; Self reliance with a backstop in case of a catastrophe.