TOPICS

The Office of Personnel Management wants to expand high-deductible health plans for the 2009 federal benefits season, but it's debatable whether such plans are more beneficial than comprehensive offerings.

The Bush administration has championed high-deductible plans and the savings accounts that accompany them as a potential solution to escalating health care costs, largely because they provide greater flexibility and discretion over how enrollees use their health benefits. The plans feature lower monthly premiums than do traditional offerings, but in exchange, have higher annual deductibles.

However, according to a study released March 18 by the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute and the Commonwealth Fund, high-deductible plans are not tackling the problem of costly health care yet -- and it remains to be seen whether they ever will.


RELATED STORIES

The survey, which questioned 4,217 privately insured adults ages 21 to 64, found that enrollment in high-deductible plans remains low, with only 11 percent of the respondents participating in one, compared with 9 percent in 2005. The survey also discovered that adults enrolled in such plans tend to be healthier and wealthier than those in comprehensive plans.

"So far, there is little evidence that the tax benefits of consumer-driven health plans have the potential to help change the trajectory of health care cost growth [or] are leading health plans or providers to provide more information about the quality and price of services to patients," the report said.

EBRI's survey also found that those enrolled in high-deductible plans are more likely to bypass necessary health care or medications because of cost than are those in comprehensive plans. High-deductible enrollees also are likely to talk to their doctors about treatment options and costs, or to ask for a generic or cheaper drug, the study found.

Employee groups such as the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association have spoken out against the expansion of high-deductible plans, concerned that they could increase premiums for comprehensive offerings since relatively healthy enrollees with higher incomes could be siphoned off into high-deductible plans.

"OPM continues to encourage FEHBP insurance carriers to expand the availability of high-deductible health plans, despite the fact that the controversial option has only attracted a minute fraction of federal workers and retirees," NARFE said in a statement last week.

OPM began offering high-deductible health plans in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program in 2005; the number of carriers offering them went up from 29 in 2007 to 32 this year.

An OPM spokesman said Monday that it is still too early to determine the number of federal enrollees in high-deductible plans for 2008. In 2007, only 9,000 federal employees were enrolled in one.

In its 2009 annual call letter to federal benefits carriers, OPM again encouraged proposals to expand the availability of high-deductible options in FEHBP. "These consumer-driven options continue to increase in popularity, and we will work with you on flexible approaches to make them more available to the federal population," the letter said.

It appears that high-deductible health plans are here to stay, and with the number in the federal health benefits program likely to increase for the 2009 season, it might be worth doing your homework to determine whether such a plan is right for you.

COMMENTS

  • Federal Employee #2 - Last time I checked, my HSA plan (Fed Aetna) requires me to pay the Aetna negotiated rate for provided services, not the unisured rate you mention. This is even before I hit the deductible. Not sure what the other plans are like, but I assume they are stuctured similarily - at least the ones offered by OPM. In general, HSA's are a great way to lower your health care costs. Think of it as raising your auto insurance from a $100 deductible, to $500 or $1000, assuming you can take the $1000 blow when an accident does happen. The HSA plans might not be a good deal for every one, but from what I calculated for my situation, I am saving big $$$ on premiums, plus the money in the HSA is triple tax advantaged (tax deductible contributions, earnings are tax free, and withdrawls are not taxable when used on qualified medical expenses).
  • dfes2000, you got me. I agree 100% with your assessment, I'd love to see them jailed but with the Democrats in office its the best we can hope for. We just had a concrete company get busted with 60 illegals but no employer sanctions. I've been down to the border recently and this comapny actively recruits illegals and has hwy bill boards on the Mex side
  • Ms. Merchant, you are a classic example of how insurance companies and other special interests are able to use their vast resources to produce propaganda and convince the public, who does not have the time or inclination to do any real research, of anything they want. I am an attorney and have practiced both for an insurance defense firm and as plaintiffs' counsel before I went to work for Uncle Sam. I can tell you that I have seen far more mertiorious claims never receive any compensation than I have ever seen a frivolous claim get paid. The burden of proof is always with the plaintiff. Doctors try to see way too many patients so they can be millionaires by the time they are 40. Where have you been these past few years when all the publicity about doctors taking off the wrong limb or taking out the wrong organ or even operating on the wrong patient has been in the headlines? Not to mention all the press about doctors and nurses providing patients with the wrong medication. I think if any of these things happened to you or someone you loved you would not think there ought to be a cap on damages. You would probably want that decision to be left to a judge or jury who heard all the facts in the case. The AMA could easily prevent a lot of malpractice being committed. All they would have to do is open a few more medical shcools in the U.S. Instead, the need for more doctors is being met by foriegn educated people, both Americans who go to off shore medical schools and foriegners. Many of these people are very competent. However, the quality of their education is simply not on the same par as medical schools in this country.