Generosity and adjusted premiums in job-based insurance: Hawaii is up, Wyoming is down.
(33/77)
This paper reports national and state findings on the generosity or actuarial value of U.S. employer-based plans and adjusted premiums in 2002. The basis for our calculations is simulated bill paying for a large standardized population. After adjusting for the quality of benefits, we find from regression analysis that adjusted premiums are 18 percent higher in the nation's smallest firms than in firms with 1,000 or more workers. They are 25 percent higher in indemnity plans and 18 percent higher in preferred provider organizations than in health maintenance organizations. The generosity of coverage increased from 1997 to 2002. (+info)
Inmate-made weapons in prison facilities: assessing the injury risk.
(34/77)
More than 2400 correctional workers in the United States required medical attention in 1999 following assaults by inmates, often with unconventional "homemade" weapons. Little information is available about these weapons. The authors surveyed 101 state prisons for a 12 month period within 2002-03, and 70 responded. A total of 1326 weapons were either confiscated (1086) or used to injure inmates (203) or staff (37). Staff were most often attacked with clubs. The prison store was the most common source of materials used to make confiscated weapons. Issued items were the most common source of materials used to make weapons to injure staff. The injury rate for staff was 1.0/1000 workers per year. The annual cost of injuries for time lost and medical care for staff was estimated at $1,125,000 in these 70 prisons. Results identify materials that should be redesigned to prevent modifications to make weapons. Prison stores and issued items deserve special attention. (+info)
Employer-paid nonmedical costs for patients with diabetes and end-stage renal disease.
(35/77)
INTRODUCTION: Disease conditions such as end-stage renal disease (ESRD), which have severe consequences of disability and mortality, can generate substantial costs for large employers providing life insurance and disability insurance benefits. This study is the first to examine such disease-related nonmedical costs for employers and models the following employer-paid costs for ESRD in patients with diabetes: 1) life insurance benefits, 2) disability benefits, and 3) cost of replacing a worker. METHODS: We simulated a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 individuals with the age and sex distribution of a typical employee population in the United States. Data sources for the model parameters included the United States Renal Data System and proprietary life insurance and disability insurance claims databases. In addition, we used published information to identify the structures of typical employee benefits programs and annual salary information and to estimate the cost of replacing lost workers. RESULTS: The study estimated that employers may incur life insurance costs of 55,055 dollars per ESRD-related death, disability insurance costs of 31,671 dollars per ESRD-related disability, and worker replacement costs of 27,869 dollars per ESRD-related lost worker. Overall, the total monthly cost per employee with ESRD and diabetes was 5439 dollars. CONCLUSION: Our study finds that, other than the large direct medical costs documented in literature, ESRD onset also results in substantial nonmedical costs for employers. As employers continue to debate changes in the structure of future health plan benefits to reduce health care costs, they should consider potential indirect cost savings of providing affordable access to medical care that prevents or delays disability and mortality in their workers. (+info)
Sharing the burden of TB/HIV? Costs and financing of public-private partnerships for tuberculosis treatment in South Africa.
(36/77)
OBJECTIVE: To explore the economic costs and sources of financing for different public-private partnership (PPP) arrangements to tuberculosis (TB) provision involving both workplace and non-profit private providers in South Africa. The financing required for the different models from the perspective of the provincial TB programme, provider, and the patient are considered. METHOD: Two models of TB provider partnerships were evaluated, relative to sole public provision: public-private workplace (PWP) and public-private non-government (PNP). The cost analysis was undertaken from a societal perspective. Costs were collected retrospectively to consider both the financial and economic costs. Patient costs were estimated using a retrospective structured patient interview. RESULTS: Expansion of PPPs could potentially lead to reduced government sector financing requirements for new patients: government financing would require $609-690 per new patient treated in the purely public model, in contrast to PNP sites which would only need to $130-139 per patient and $36-46 with the PWP model. Moreover, there are no patient costs associated with the treatment in the employer-based facilities and the cost to the patient supervised in the community is, on average, three times lower than in public sector facilities. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that there is a strong economic case for expanding PPP involvement in TB treatment in the process of scaling up. The cost to the government per new patient treated could be reduced by enhanced partnership between the private and public sectors. (+info)
Pharmacy benefit spending on oral chemotherapy drugs.
(37/77)
BACKGROUND: Pharmacy benefits have historically excluded injectable drugs, resulting in coverage of injectable drugs under the medical benefit. High-cost biologics and other new drug therapies are often injectables and therefore have not presented cost threats to pharmacy benefits. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of capecitabine, an oral form of fluorouracil, in 1998, and imatinib mesylate in oral dose form for chronic myeloid leukemia, in 2001, signaled a new period in budget forecasting for pharmacy benefits, particularly for small, self-insured employers for whom a drug with a cost of 25,000 dollars per year of therapy for 1 patient could increase total pharmacy benefit costs by 10% or more. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the actual relative costs of the oral chemotherapy drugs in pharmacy benefits in 2006 and identify the history of spending on oral chemotherapy drugs relative to total pharmacy benefit spending for small, self-insured employers over the 4.5 years through May 2006. METHODS: Administrative pharmacy claims from the database of a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) for approximately 500,000 members of small, self-insured employer plans were used to calculate the net plan cost of oral chemotherapy drugs relative to total drug benefit costs for the period January 1, 2002, through May 31, 2006. Current costs for oral chemotherapy drugs for small employers were compared with an insured health plan of approximately the same number of members for dates of service January 1, 2006, through May 31, 2006. RESULTS: This descriptive analysis found that oral chemotherapy drugs represented 0.27% of total drug benefit costs, or approximately 0.08 dollars per member per month (PMPM) for small, self-insured employers in 2002, rising linearly to 0.73%, or approximately 0.24 dollars PMPM in the first 5 months of 2006. Members in pharmacy benefit plans sponsored by small employers paid an average 6.9% cost share for oral chemotherapy drugs in 2006, nearly identical to the average 8.5% paid by members of an insured health plan of similar size in total membership, versus 26.9% average cost share for all drugs. Imatinib mesylate accounted for 45% of total spending on oral chemotherapy agents in 2002 versus 40% in 2006. CONCLUSION: Spending on oral chemotherapy drugs as a proportion of total pharmacy benefit costs has more than doubled, from about 0.3% in 2002 to 0.7% in 2006. For small, self-insured employers, this represents a nearly 3-fold increase in spending, from about 0.08 dollars PMPM in 2002 to about 0.24 dollars PMPM in 2006. (+info)
New directions for public health care purchasers? Responses to looming challenges.
(38/77)
State public employee health plans (PEHPs) provide health benefits for millions of state and local workers, retirees, and their dependents nationwide. This paper explores major issues and challenges that PEHP leaders and state policymakers are addressing. These include the perennial challenge of funding benefits for a diverse and aging workforce; new accounting standards affecting public employers; and the changing relationship between states, retired public employees, and the Medicare program. Interviews with PEHP executives explored whether these are incremental challenges to which states can effectively adapt, or whether these challenges will catalyze broader and lasting change in the public employee and retiree health benefits arena. (+info)
Effects of a cost-sharing exemption on use of preventive services at one large employer.
(39/77)
In 2004, Alcoa introduced a new health benefit for a portion of its workforce, which eliminated cost sharing for preventive care while increasing cost sharing for many other services. In this era of increased consumerism, Alcoa's benefit redesign constituted an effort to reduce health care costs while preserving use of targeted services. Taking advantage of a unique natural experiment, we find that Alcoa was able to maintain rates of preventive service use. This evidence suggests that differential cost sharing can be used to preserve the use of critical health care services. (+info)
Employment-based health insurance: past, present, and future.
(40/77)
We review the rise, stabilization, and decline of employment-based insurance; discuss its transformation from quasi-social insurance to a system based on actuarial principles; and suggest that the presence of Medicare and Medicaid has weakened political pressure for universal coverage. We highlight employment-based insurance's flaws: high administrative costs, inequitable sharing of costs, inability to cover large segments of the population, contribution to labor-management strife, and the inability of employers to act collectively to make health care more cost-effective. We conclude with scenarios for possible trajectories: employment-based insurance flourishes, continues to erode, or is replaced by a more comprehensive system. (+info)