« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Democrats Seek to Kill Health Care Program Obama Praises

The Obama Con: It's Not ME; CONGRESS Killed Private Sector Health Care

Today the Wall Street Journal covers the innovative private-sector health care program which Safeway offers to its employees. It sounds like a model for how market incentives can encourage workers to live healthier and more active lifestyles:

Safeway’s plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.

As much as we would like to take credit for being a health-care innovator, Safeway has done nothing more than borrow from the well-tested automobile insurance model. For decades, driving behavior has been correlated with accident risk and has therefore translated into premium differences among drivers. Stated somewhat differently, the auto-insurance industry has long recognized the role of personal responsibility. As a result, bad behaviors (like speeding, tickets for failure to follow the rules of the road, and frequency of accidents) are considered when establishing insurance premiums. Bad driver premiums are not subsidized by the good driver premiums.

As with most employers, Safeway’s employees pay a portion of their own health care through premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The big difference between Safeway and most employers is that we have pronounced differences in premiums that reflect each covered member’s behaviors. Our plan utilizes a provision in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that permits employers to differentiate premiums based on behaviors. Currently we are focused on tobacco usage, healthy weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels…

At Safeway, we are building a culture of health and fitness. The numbers speak for themselves. Our obesity and smoking rates are roughly 70% of the national average and our health-care costs for four years have been held constant. When surveyed, 78% of our employees rated our plan good, very good or excellent. In addition, 76% asked for more financial incentives to reward healthy behaviors. We have heard from dozens of employees who lost weight, lowered their blood-pressure and cholesterol levels, and are enjoying better health because of this program. Many discovered for the first time that they have high blood pressure, and others have been told by their doctor that they have added years to their life.

Today, we are constrained by current laws from increasing these incentives. We reward plan members $312 per year for not using tobacco, yet the annual cost of insuring a tobacco user is $1,400. Reform legislation needs to raise the federal legal limits so that incentives can better match the true incremental benefit of not engaging in these unhealthy behaviors. If these limits are appropriately increased, I am confident Safeway’s per capita health-care costs will decline for at least another five years as our work force becomes healthier.

This is precisely the direction we should be headed in health care: one that gives individuals greater control over their costs and their plans. A central failure of our existing system – one that would be exacerbated by socializing health care – is that it divorces individuals from the costs of their health care. It puts employers and taxpayers on the hook for much of the cost, and gives individuals no incentive to make rational cost-benefit analyses about their care.

Programs like Safeway’s provide valuable ammunition for conservatives. While liberals scream that we must do something, we have an example of what works: a commonsense system of incentives and penalties – which still doesn’t impose onerous costs on workers.

No less an authority than Barack Obama has praised Safeway for its innovative approach:

Building a health care system that promotes prevention rather than just managing diseases will require all of us to do our part. It will take doctors telling us what risk factors we should avoid and what preventive measures we should pursue. And it will take employers following the example of places like Safeway that is rewarding workers for taking better care of their health while reducing health care costs in the process. If you’re one of the three quarters of Safeway workers enrolled in their “Healthy Measures” program, you can get screened for problems like high cholesterol or high blood pressure. And if you score well, you can pay lower premiums. It’s a program that has helped Safeway cut health care spending by 13% and workers save over 20% on their premiums. And we are open to doing more to help employers adopt and expand programs like this one.

If Obama really believes we ought to do more to expand programs like this one, he needs to have a talk with his friends in Congress. They are planning to make the Safeway program illegal.

Barack Obama will try to get away with offering kind words about this program while allowing Congressional Democrats to kill it. When he signs legislation that sets us on the road to a single-payer federal system, he’ll offer some lame statement about how he disagrees with that part of the bill.

That can’t be allowed to happen.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    While the MSM gives Obama cover and keep his spin while his intent is Socialized Medicine (been the Democrats plan forever, sad some do allow themselves to be fooled by this BS) it may prove helpful in ‘correcting Congress’ as the supposed rift implies via 2010 votes…. If we can survive (stave off this BS) until then.

  • Jay_Cee

    Risk priced health care is where its at.

    I would just like to see it de-coupled from employment somehow. Could I get a plan like this even if I’m unemployed? I’d probably have more time to exercise and eat better.

  • tempest

    to Safeway’s plan. I work for a large private company that self-funds it’s insurance plans, including medical.

    Our plan does not currently have different cost structures for individual participants, but it is market-based.

    Our plan utilizes a high deductible in conjunction with the Healthcare Savings Account (HSA) with the following attributes.

    1. $1,150 individual deductible, $2,300 familiy deductible.
    2. The plan doesn’t pay anything until the deductible is met, then covers 90%, thereafter.
    3. Annual out-of-pocket maximum is ~$5,500, thereafter everything covered 100%.
    4. The plan pays upto $600 per family member per year for annual preventitive medical tests (i.e. routine phyical, blood work, mamogram, prostate test, ect.)
    5. Plan cost for my family is $52/mo (pre-tax).

    The structure of our plan incentivizes behavior in the following ways.
    1. Financial incentive to get annual preventitive medical care (physicals etc).
    2. Paying out of pocket up to the deductible amount encourages use of generic drugs and limits office visits to only those that are “really” necessary i.e. no running to the doctor for every sniffle if you know you are definately going to have to pay it.

    I love my plan because if we are healthy and smart about it, we can save $1,500 per year. With the old low deductible co-pay plan costing ~$300 per month, I was guaranteed to pay $3,600 per year versus the $625. That $3K gap provides a measure of optionality and thus aligns the participants incentives with the company’s…to keep costs as low as possible!

  • Doc Holliday

    Safeway is a union company and price gouger because of the need to cede to union demands. ok, I said that, now to the article.

    I think if makes sense to charge premiums on a risk basis. Certainly an 80 year old would pay more for life insurance than a 20 year old. The thing I worry about is will costs and risks be judged scientifically or politically. I keep hearing about tobacco, but what about how often someone drives a car or swims in a pool? We know how many people are killed a year in car accidents, but like gun crime statistics, most tobacco statistics are unreliable and politically tinged.

    Who should Safeway charge more, a fat, old non-smoker or a thin, young, smoker? Should someone who lives in a smog filled city pay more than someone in Montana? Who costs more a smoker who never goes to the doctor or a ditzy mom who takes her kids to the emergency room every time they sneeze?

    I am not saying you don’t make a few good points, but I think this idea could also lead down a very dangerous path; one that invades privacy to an extent Americans would never allow. One reason why insurance companies insure large groups is so that they do NOT have to know everything about each individuals life, they can take samples such as pollsters and figure the risk/reward that way.

    Personally, I think employers should get out of the the insurance business. Just pay the individual what he is worth and let him find his own insurance. Who decided it is better for the employer to be involved in the first place? Do those who are between jobs or work for themselves not still have health needs? And why is no one talking about health savings accounts any more.

    It seems this stuff is like getting economists to agree, an impossible feat. you have the many who say preventive medicine aka constant check ups saves money. Then you have others who say it is the moms that keep taking kids to the ER every few days that are causing insurance rates to skyrocket.

    I think in the end the government needs to get out of it, and so do smaller governments, including big business. I bet Warren Buffett could figure out the right premium to charge without going into such detail he loses his profit by wasting time and effort.

    • Jay_Cee

      “Who should Safeway charge more, a fat, old non-smoker or a thin, young, smoker?”

      I’ll bet that just about every insurance company out there could answer this question. Some would answer it better than others and their price structure would reflect that. They would have a competitive advantage over those who answered it incorrectly.

      As far as privacy goes, I think the typical health insurance company already knows just about everything about us. The challenge would be keeping that out of the hands of employers. But I agree with you 100% about getting employers out of the insurance business.

      Government regulation is always tricky. I know that California was meddling with auto insurance rates by preventing companies from adjusting rates based on zip code (this seems perfectly reasonable to me. If I live in a bad part of town, my car is more likely to get broken in to, and I should have to pay more).

      And finally – the key point in my mind is not about maximizing profits, but rather incentivising healthy behavior which brings costs down for everyone. I think people would react better to monetary incentives rather than fuzzy long term health risks which (obviously) most americans tend to ignore.

      • Doc Holliday

        I particularly liked your response on the best risk manager being rewarded by his own skill.

        I think we both agree the free market is the best answer. Yet we know it would take a lot more than to adopt health incentives to make the health insurance market a free one. We know the market is anti-competitive.

        As per financial incentives for good behavior, I agreed they are a good idea to a point. My issue is that there are almost endless decisions individuals make every day that increase and decrease their health risks. It seems to me that some people want to focus only on tobacco, weight, etc, you know those “evil” things. I am for voluntary healthy living but am not much into social engineering.

        As Rush often illustrates absurdity by being absurd; I could argue that people with higher IQ’s are safer insurance bets as they are less likely to accidentally step in front of a bus.

  • donnac1188

    Of course, we can nit pick around the edges of any plan; but what I like about this one is it’s got a proven track record. Almost anything else mentioned is just pie in the sky at this point.

    Beginning with Medicare, our healtcare system has been on a course of self-destruction; and if this is what it takes to open everyone’s eyes, then sobeit. As difficult as it might be to imagine, perhaps, against his own wishes, Obama has opened up an opportunity to improve and expand what is already the best healthcare system in the world. Americans are noted for landing on their feet, overcoming incredible odds and coming out on the other side even better than before. This could be one of those times.