Business and Healthcare
Miles Davis
Consultant/Keynote Speaker I help organizations and people evolve to achieve strategic objectives.
The passing of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or what has commonly come to be called “ObamaCare” has sparked much debate about the nature of healthcare access and possible impact on employers. Some have speculated that small businesses will even reduce staff to have more part time employees or cut staff to fall below the minimum of 50 employees, which have to comply with the provisions of the ACA.
What is not being discussed is whether businesses should be in the business of offering healthcare. Before answering this question we must first understand how it came to be that businesses offer health insurance, as it was not always so. Just like the recent law enacting the ACA was passed by congress; it was congress that ushered in the era of employers providing health insurance.
During World War II, workers demanded wage increases that were prohibited by wartime wage and price controls. To grant a concession to labor without violating wage and price controls, Congress exempted employer-sponsored health insurance from wage controls and income taxation—in effect allowing off-the-books raises for employees in the form of non-taxable health benefits. This created an enormous tax advantage for employer-sponsored health benefits over health insurance purchased by employees with after-tax dollars (e.g., auto insurance). By the mid-1960s employer-sponsored health benefits were almost universal (https://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/bid/140015/Why-Do-Employers-Offer-Health-Insurance).
Lehman and Belady (1974) articulated a set of “laws” related to increasing complexity of software evolution that equally applies to government regulation and the healthcare market place. A recent conversation with a small business owner highlights the challenge of selecting health insurance for her employees: “How am I suppose to make a decision on the various healthcare plans [available]? I mainly look at the cost, which continue to rise, and try to find the cheapest one.” In addition to choosing health care plans under the ACA employers are required to report the cost of healthcare coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan on an employee’s Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The increasing cost, complexity and reporting requirements of providing healthcare insurance to employees requires that we think beyond the political polemics and in terms for the major provider of health care insurance; employers.
We have now become familiar with terms such as “universal coverage” and “one payer” or “single payer” health care systems. Maybe it is time for us to explore some other alternatives, which do not have as much political baggage attached. For example: according to the Kaiser Foundation (See: https://kff.org/other/state-indicator/single-coverage/) the average employer contributes $400.00 per month, per employee for health care insurance. What if the employer just paid employees the additional $4800.00 per year and employees purchased their own insurance on “open exchanges”? The process could be set-up the same way we presently have health care savings accounts, but shifts the administration of health care benefits and plans from the employer to the end user of the product. Employees could make decisions based on their individual circumstances and companies could focus resources on their core business.
The above is only one example of how we could change how health care insurance is accessed in this country. We could also eliminate the favorable tax treatment given to such benefits, which in turn would cause as dramatic shift in the system as when congress first began exempting health care insurance in the 1940s. The national conversation has already begun on health care insurance and its rising cost to the country. It is now time to begin discussions on why businesses should get out of the health care business. As one company owner said to me in exasperation “I do not cover [employees] car insurance, why should I cover the cost of [employees] health insurance.”
M&A Advisor, Author, Speaker, Founder & CEO of sbLiftOff
10 年These are some excellent points. We should remember that employer provided health care came about by accident, not design. Further, it developed during a time that employees tended to stay with one company for most if not all of their career -- certainly a circumstance that no longer exists. There is a benefit to people -- as opposed to employers -- paying premiums. When an individual pays, he/she is more likely to look at cost and value. We can analogize health care to housing. Both are needed. Except for the poor, the government does not provide housing. However, it has an extensive regulatory structure to insure that houses and apartment buildings are safe -- we call it building codes. But so long as the unit meets the building code, an individual can have a 10,000 sf house or a 200 sf apartment. It should be the same with health care. The government should set the minimum code of what health insurance has to provide, as well as structure a system in which there is an individual mandate, no pre-existing conditions, etc. Then each company can compete based upon price, service, and bells and whistles. In fact, that is a pretty good description of Obamacare.
Proprietário(a), TEAM TELECOM
10 年somente texto em português
Digital Nomad - Remote Contractor
10 年There was a viable lab that has served as a great predictor of how this national plan will fail. Look no further than the Health Care Reform of Washington state 1996. Every failure that was realized and tracked at the state level - we have hit, or are scheduled to hit at the Federal Level. (hint - watch Aetna )