New information is coming out on consumer directed health plans that indicates member satisfaction rates are significantly lower than those of individuals enrolled in “traditional” health plans. These plans are based on the premise that empowering consumers with information and requiring them to spend their own money (albeit from tax-deferred Health Savings Accounts) on costs up to a high deductible, after which insurance takes over (typically $2000 to $5000) will help reduce or at least constrain the rate of increase in health care costs.
It does appear that members of CDHPs are interested in costs; according to the Los Angeles Times article on CDHP member satisfaction and adoption rates (free registration required):
“High-deductible plans do make people think more carefully about costs. A study released Thursday by the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute, for example, found that more than 70% of people in consumer-driven health plans said they considered costs when deciding whether to see a doctor, compared with less than 40% of people in traditional insurance plans.”
The information appears to be lacking for seven out of eight enrollees; only 12% of CDHP plan members have received information allowing them to compare costs at different facilities, and just a few more have been provided data on health care providers’ quality indicators.
As noted here earlier, Aetna is one of the leaders in this area, providing both cost and quality data to members in many of their locations. Aetna also has developed a website that enables members to find out what their costs will be for specific providers based on the member’s specific health plan benefit design.
Pacificare has also licensed IHCIS’ technology to provide members with a “Health Cost Estimator” which contains information on low, average and high costs by diagnosis and procedure for in-network or non-network providers.
There are now approximately 4 million CDHP members in the nation, with enrollment expected to more than quadruple by 2008. However, these numbers may be a little misleading, as the definition of a CDHP tends to be somewhat vague.
Dec
14
These plans sound great when people sign up for them. They are able to use these plans like savings accounts and seemingly avoiding the trap of “throwing their money away” to an insurance company.
I wonder if the dissatisfaction kicks in when they really do need Health Insurance and the plans that they have signed up with provide little protection and the policy holder carries lots of $ risk.
I am curious what you have found out about the high deductible plans and the effects these plans are having on early detection of problems. For example if a person discovers that they have symptoms that should be checked for early detection of cancer, that could also be nothing, but their deductible for screening tests or their copays are so high that they question going to the doctor, is this really helpful. The insurance company will have a lower cost for the person deciding not to go to the doctor for that one time, which means lower costs in the present, but if the person has a problem that could have been detected; the insurance company now has much higher treatment costs, because the problem had additional time to grow. I am not sure that the high deductible idea is a smart one in the long run.
“The insurance company will have a lower cost for the person deciding not to go to the doctor for that one time, which means lower costs in the present, but if the person has a problem that could have been detected; the insurance company now has much higher treatment costs, because the problem had additional time to grow. I am not sure that the high deductible idea is a smart one in the long run.”
Most plans – all responsible plans I know of – – offer (and recommend) coverage of preventive care at 100% for that very reason. Don’t know why this fact is not more widely known.