Poll: Employers Pass Along Higher Health Costs

October 16, 2003 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - With health-care cost inflation running at 14.3% annually, nearly half of the respondents in a recent poll said they're changing their health plan design to cope with the higher costs.

Nearly half (45%) of the respondents to the survey by the Human Capital practice of Deloitte said they are increasing deductibles, co-payments, and insurance to pass along a portion of the extra coverage costs. Not surprisingly, one in five employers are trying to make their employees better health consumers as their cost-control strategy – up from 9% in a 2001 survey.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

“Clearly, this indicates a major shift by employers to get employees more involved in the health-care process,” said Barbara Gniewek, a principal in Deloitte’s Human Capital practice and the survey’s chief analyst. Two-thirds of employers that have already implemented a consumer-driven plan offer it as an option to their traditional plan lineup

Another 20% of employers reported increasing employee contributions as a primary means to control costs, while 9% said their primary strategy was contracting with lower-cost health plans or administrators through the competitive bid process.

Meanwhile, only 1% of respondents indicate that they’ve implemented a voucher plan, such as a lump-sum cash payment to employees instead of health insurance. However, 11% are thinking about doing so during the next five years.

Additional survey findings include:

  • 85% of respondents said cost was the primary factor driving their health-care strategies. The cost of employer-sponsored health-care benefits increased 14.3% this year to $6,020 per employee from $5,239 in 2002.
  • Prescription drug costs averaged $847 per employee annually in 2002, or 16% of total medical plan expenses.
  • 68% of respondents indicate that the most significant obstacle to changing the current health care model remains employee resistance.
  • Four in 10 feel that managed care is effective in controlling costs and satisfying employee need. while 57% say that Preferred Provider Organization plans offer the most effective approach for employers in managing cost and maintaining quality of care.
  • 72% of respondents indicate that they continue to use printed materials in their open enrollment forms. However, employers are increasingly utilizing Web-based options for health-care communication.

In response to controlling prescription drug benefits costs in the future, 45% said they would increase the level of employee cost-sharing, 21% will change from co-payments to coinsurance, 16% will implement a separate prescription drug deductible, and 6% will implement an annual maximum benefit. Some 12% indicated that they would move from a two-tier to a three-tier/formula benefit. Only 4% indicated that they would drop health-plan coverage for prescription drugs.

Questions of Fact Still Remain Around COBRA Claim

October 15, 2003 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Questions of fact still remain in a case involving a terminated employee's Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) benefits, thus precluding summary judgment.

>Even though many of the allegations made by the employee were dismissed by US District Judge Jed Rakoff  the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Rakoff determined a trail to examine all the facts of the case would be necessary.   This was in order to decide whether the ex-employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct, which would disentitle him to COBRA benefits, or if the nature of his termination entitled him to COBRA benefits.

>Summary judgment on both sides – on the claim of breach of contract for termination without cause and failure to compensate as promised – was denied though as the court found questions of fact regarding whether the employer and employee had a binding employment agreement.   In addition, the court found questions of fact whether the employee had actual notice of the rights of his 401(k) plan, a point the employee argues violates Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) provisions.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Case History

Adam Deutsch was employed by Kroll Associates, Inc. from June 1991 to April 2000. He was promoted several times, eventually becoming a managing director.  

Beginning in the early part of 2000, the company received complaints about Deutsch’s behavior.   Among the allegations were fits of violence displayed by Deutsch and improper behavior toward female employees. At the time, Kroll considered terminating him, but delayed action.   Later that year, Deutsch was involved in a physical altercation with another executive at Kroll.

Following his run-in with the company executive, Kroll suggested Deutsch take a leave of absence, which he agreed to do.   However on April 14, 2000, he was informed that he was being terminated. Deutsch refused the offered severance package and sued Kroll for numerous violations of employment and contract law.

The case is Deutsch v. Kroll Associates Inc., Southern District of New York, Number 02 Civ. 2892 (JSR).

«