Skip to main content

A Different Kind of Individual Health Mandate


According to a recent report in Health Affairs, health spending in the United States is projected to rise by 5.8% per year over the next decade.

source: CT OPM
Rising health care costs are a problem that must be brought under control.  One approach is to do what Florida's doing.  It is forcing state employees into a single HMO, removing all competition from the market while praying that the HMO won't be motivated by making a profit. 

Another is to look at what the State of Connecticut is doing.
It is betting over $100 million that its employees and retirees will respond to a different kind of “individual mandate” from the one under fire in the Affordable Care Act.  Connecticut has decided to give financial incentives to employees and retirees to manage their health.  It will also penalize financially those who do not. 

State workers overwhelmingly voted to accept the new deal earlier this month.  If the plan works, then it may signal a new path for every state hoping to cut its future health care spending.
Connecticut was motivated to undertake this challenge by its mind-boggling budget deficit.  The deficit in the coming two years was projected to be 50% higher than the entire annual state budget was just a little more than 30 years ago.

To avoid thousands of layoffs, it entered into negotiations with its unions to change salary and benefit packages.
At the bargaining table, negotiators decided not just to employ the old, failed cost-containment strategies of reducing benefits to workers and squeezing payments to providers.  They took a different approach by promoting the participation of employees and retirees in disease management and health maintenance programs. 

They created a new “Health Enhancement Program” for all Connecticut state employees and all future retirees. Those who choose to participate in the “voluntary” program will benefit financially.  Those who do not will pay higher insurance rates as a penalty.
Participants in the Health Enhancement Program will receive some excellent chronic disease management services, including free health care and drugs.  They will not have to pay any co-pays for office visits related to diabetes, asthma, heart disease, hyperlipidemia, or hypertension, as long as they adhere to the schedule of visits recommended by their health care provider.

Participants in the program will also pay reduced co-pays for drugs needed to treat these conditions.  The co-pays will be as low as zero for all diabetes prescriptions and for generic drugs used to treat the other conditions.
In return, participants will have to agree to focus on staying healthy.  They must get regular physicals, eye exams, and dental cleanings.  If they and their dependents do all these things, they will receive a cash award of $100 per year for their efforts.    

On the other side, those who choose not to participate will pay more for health insurance and health care.  They will pay an additional $100 per month for their insurance.  They will pay higher drug co-pays.  They will also pay a new $350 deductible per individual, with a $1,400 family cap, for health care services not covered by co-payments.
Connecticut is betting heavily that its employees, retirees, and their dependents will want to manage their health – and, most importantly, that it will pay off in reduced costs to the state.

In June, the Office of Policy and Management estimated that the Health Enhancement Program will save the state over $100 million annually in health care costs.  OPM believes that 50% of those eligible will choose to participate, and that this will result in a 10% reduction in health insurance claims – even though some participants will be required to visit health and dental health professionals far more often than they do now.
The penalty provisions save the state another $18 million, which the non-participants will pay out-of-pocket in higher premiums and deductibles.

There may be two big holes in the Connecticut plan that will reduce the savings to the state.  While mental health and chronic pain services are still included in health plans just as before, the Health Enhancement Program does not include them among the conditions managed in the program.
Both affect a large number of people, lead to many expensive and preventable health care encounters, and often co-occur in a patient with the covered chronic conditions.  If a patient’s unmanaged mental illness leads to a failure to comply with a diabetes disease management program, both the patient and the state will lose.

Still, the Connecticut plan goes beyond what most other states have attempted, and is well worth a try. Changing the trajectory of increasing health care costs isn’t easy.  It will be interesting to see if Connecticut’s health “mandate” proves more popular and effective than the alternatives.    
If you have questions about this column, or wish to receive an email notice when Our Health Policy Matters columns are published, please email gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Missing Mental Health Element in the Ferguson Story

By now, everyone has heard the news from Ferguson, Missouri.  An unarmed 18 year old named Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer.  Michael Brown was black. Some of the events surrounding the shooting are in dispute.  But what isn’t in dispute is that for the past two weeks, a community has been torn apart by race – a community that until recently was best known for its proximity to St. Louis and its designation as a Playful City, USA . Picture credit: Health Affairs Media reports since the August 9 th shooting have focused almost entirely on one angle – race relations.  We’ve heard about unrest in the city, the National Guard, police in riot gear, and danger in the streets.  We’ve heard about the District Attorney’s ties to law enforcement, and concerns that a too-white Grand Jury may be racially motivated not to indict the police officer involved in the deadly shooting. But the media have been strangely silent about a different angle – this comm

Celebrating Larissa Gionfriddo Podermanski Five Years Later

My daughter Larissa died of Metastatic Breast Cancer five years ago, in May of 2018.  She had only two wishes at the end. One was that we plant a tree for her. We did - in a Middletown CT city park - and it has grown straight and tall. The other was that she not be forgotten. Larissa's family and friends took pains to reassure that she could not be forgotten. If you were fortunate enough to know Larissa, you would know why. Still, I wondered how I might celebrate her a little more now that some years have passed, while sharing some of her memorable spirit with others (some who knew her and others who did not), while reminding us why she was such an extraordinary woman. In early 2017, Larissa started a blog called Metastatically Speaking, through which she chronicled her life with MBC. Unfortunately - and through no one's fault - her blog disappeared some time after her death. So, if you search for it now, you can't find it.  However, I was fortunate enough to see and retain

Judgment Day

Ironic. I was not as nervous as you would think on April 23 rd .  Martin, my mother and I drove up to Dana Farber.  All weekend I wanted plan for Poland, Barbados and Florida, as we brainstormed ideas of what could be attainable or possible. I started to realize I looked pregnant… but that couldn’t be. When the appointment began I noticed it felt like a routine visit. Everything went smoothly, but what were we focusing on? It was this: if I did nothing the outlook for me was living three weeks to a few months longer. So, is that my only option, I wanted to know?   No, I was told we can try a low dose chemo and see how it works.   Since it is low dose, they said, it won’t do much harm, but we truly don’t know how it will work. It’s not a treatment we have used a lot at low dose and technically you are in liver failure, leaving you with limited options.   Of course, the goal would still be to get you to be stable; however, this is a blind treatment. We don’t know if this approach w