A new survey shows an average worker with a family plan pays
nearly $4,000 a year, up 14% from 2009. Meanwhile, the average employer
contribution to a family plan hasn't increased at all.

by Noam N. LeveyThe Los Angeles Times

September 2, 2010

Reporting from Washington

As employers struggle with rising healthcare costs and a sour
economy, U.S. workers for the first time in at least a decade are being
asked to shoulder the entire increase in the cost of health benefits on
their own.

The average worker with a family plan was hit with 14% premium increase
this year, pushing the bill to nearly $4,000 a year, according to a
survey by the nonprofit Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health
Research and Educational Trust.

That is the largest annual increase since the survey began in 1999 and a
marked change from previous years, when employers generally split the
rise in the cost of premiums with their employees.

The average employer contribution to a family plan did not go up at all
this year, meaning the entire increase was borne by workers.

At the same time, nearly a third of employers reported that they either
reduced the scope of benefits they are offering this year or increased
the amount that workers must pay out of pocket for their medical care.

Workers saw average copayments for routine office visits increase 10% and deductibles continue their surge upward.

In 2010, more than a quarter of American workers with employer-provided
health coverage were in plans with deductibles of at least $1,000.

"It's really bad news for everybody," said Helen Darling, president of
the National Business Group on Health, an organization of large
employers that provide coverage to about 50 million workers, retirees
and dependents.

Overall, premium growth slowed slightly this year to 3%, with the
average annual cost of a family health plan reaching $13,770. Workers
picked up 30% of that bill. The average plan for an individual cost
$5,049.

The squeeze, reported by employers between January and May, largely
reflects the fallout of the ongoing economic slowdown and may be
ameliorated in future years as the new healthcare law is implemented.

But it could further complicate the Obama administration's efforts to
rally support for the law, which is expected to do relatively little in
the short term to contain rising medical bills.

"There have been times when employers have been able to absorb costs.
This is not one of those times," said James Gelfand, health policy
director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a leading critic of the new
law.

The law, which focused on expanding coverage for Americans who don't get
insurance through work, was designed to largely preserve the existing
employer-based healthcare system.

Independent analyses of the law estimate that most Americans will
continue to get insurance through their employer, as about 157 million
do now.

Administration officials Thursday pointed to two new studies from the
Rand Corp. and the Commonwealth Fund that predicted small businesses in
particular would probably expand coverage in coming years, in part with
help from billions of dollars of in new tax credits.

"We have really just begun our efforts," said Nancy-Ann DeParle,
director of the White House Office of Health Reform, emphasizing the
growing number of tools government regulators have to control insurance
premiums.

The Kaiser survey found that the percentage of firms offering health
benefits rose to 69% from 60% this year, an unexpected increase that
analysts speculate may reflect the failure of many businesses that
didn't offer benefits.

But the survey suggests that the coverage workers are being offered is
becoming increasingly unattractive as employers try to control their
costs in the down economy.

"We were all so focused on the reform debate that I think we took our
eyes off the fact that what we call heath insurance in this country is
changing," said Kaiser foundation President Drew Altman. "What workers
get looks less and less like the comprehensive coverage their parents
had."

Since 2005, workers' contributions to insurance premiums have shot up
47%, far outpacing the 18% increase in wages over the same period,
according to the survey.

The squeeze on employees at small and medium-sized businesses has been
particularly intense, as these employers face the biggest challenges
providing their workers with health benefits.

Nearly half of all workers at firms with fewer than 200 employees are now in plans with deductibles of $1,000 or more.

The bleak statistics do not reflect some more-promising changes in the
way employers are designing their health benefits, said Paul Fronstin,
senior research associate with the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research
Institute.

Some large companies, for example, are raising copays for specialist
care while lowering them for primary care in a bid to encourage workers
to use more preventive care, which is typically less expensive in the
long run.

"There are more things going on than just slashing benefits," Fronstin said.

The new law may also help bolster the benefits workers get from
employer-provided coverage by prohibiting plans from imposing lifetime
benefit limits and by requiring them to cover dependent children under
age 26.

If employers substantially raise deductibles and copays or scale back
their contribution to employees' premiums by more than 5 percentage
points, the health benefits would be subject to even more mandates.

These include covering preventive services such as cancer screenings with no copays or other cost sharing.

The added protections for workers have been widely praised by consumer
advocates. They are expected to further push up premiums, at least for
the short term, however.

And businesses and workers probably will have to wait longer for the
benefits of provisions in the new law designed to improve care and make
it more efficient.

That will require patience, said Kaiser's Altman.

"Health reform may not be perfect," he said. "But when it comes to cost
containment, it is the only game in town, as opposed to the current
strategy, which by default seems to only be shifting more costs onto
workers."

[url]latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-healthcare-costs-20100903,0,4661241.story[/url]

How many industrialized countries besides the U.S. have health care done through the employer?

This is so obviously a major problem for the competitiveness of US goods and services in the global market. How can we get the public to see this? Why doesn't the Chamber of Commerce advocate for Single Payer, given that it would make US products more competitive? It's in everyone's best interest, except those who make profits off of people's health misfortunes (doctors, hospital corporations, medical electronics corporations, pharmaceutical corporations, health insurance corporations, malpractice attorneys, malpractice defense attorneys, malpractice insurance corporations, etc. . . .in other words, the health industrial complex).

Healthcare is a serious issue. It's not one of those things you can simply do without if you need it. For that reason, I liken it to food, water, air, and security. These are areas that each government has the right to be involved in for the benefit of its citizens.

@CenArkSD in socialist nations such as France, employers pay 10-20% of a workers medical costs and the government picks up the rest. In most industrialized nations the employer picks up some portion of the cost. I do completely agree however our healthcare system is sucking us dry and should be set up along the French model.

It really is. The costs have skyrocketed to the point where healthcare is eating up over 16% of the United States GDP.

here's a graph from 2006 when it was approaching 16%. Unacceptable!



And millions of Americans are uninsured and tens of millions more underinsured though we are spending over 16% of our entire GDP on it.