Back Button
Menu Button

Estimated Waste in Iowa Employer Health Premiums:
$2,400 Single/$6,600 Family

Imagine walking into a restaurant and being seated. Sometime after your meal, you receive the check and find an additional charge that was not indicated on the menu or previously mentioned by your waiter. The charge – before your gratuity is determined – is a 34 percent markup simply labeled, ‘Surcharge.’ After prodding the waiter, the sheepish but honest response is whispered to you: “The restaurant industry is bloated and inefficient requiring additional costs, and because of this, we must pass on this surcharge to our patrons.”

Truth be known, we are all paying this ‘surcharge’ in the healthcare that we purchase, as it is baked into our health insurance premiums and the out-of-pocket expenses we incur and pay. What is different from the hypothetical restaurant example, however, is there’s no transparency on how much these costs add up in healthcare. Opaqueness of this information allows this surcharge to be included on the final price tag – and the purchaser is no wiser.

In healthcare, it’s buyer beware – on steroids.

Healthcare Waste in the U.S.

To begin, defining healthcare ‘waste’ is somewhat tricky, but nonetheless important. Waste is defined by many in the industry to be resources that are expended in services, money, time, and/or personnel that do not add value for the patient, family or community. In fact, this non-value waste can actually harm patients, which adds more cost to the system.

I recently watched an Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) webcast, “Let’s Get to Work on Waste in Health Care.” In addition to a wonderful Call to Action’ piece, IHI provided great examples of healthcare waste within the ‘Trillion Dollar Checkbook.’ The IHI used ‘trillion’ in this piece because the healthcare industry in the U.S. is about one-fifth of the nation’s economy (and growing), and the annual spend in healthcare during 2018 was $3.65 trillion. Healthcare waste in the U.S. is generally believed to be a comfortable one-third of the total spend – roughly one trillion dollars – about the size of Mexico’s economy. Click here for the audio and video of this webcast.

The IHI referred to a JAMA article published in 2012 by Dr. Donald Berwick, a highly-respected physician and health policy expert, and Andrew Hackbarth of the RAND Corporation. The article, “Eliminating Waste in US Health Care,” aptly describes that escalating healthcare costs is debilitating other worthy government programs, erodes wages, and undermines the competitiveness of the overall U.S. industry. The percentage of waste that is built into healthcare costs, according to this paper, ranges from 21 percent to 47 percent, with 34 percent being the midpoint.

‘Litter Box’ of Healthcare Waste

So what healthcare waste is found in the litter box hidden from the public?  Plenty. A ‘less harmful strategy’ described by the JAMA authors would be to reduce waste that does not add value to care. They cite six categories of waste briefly summarized below, beginning with the largest estimated waste to the smallest:

  1. Administrative complexity – Government, private payers, and others create inefficient or misguided rules for providers. By comparison, in 2015, the U.S. spending on healthcare administration dwarfs the OECD countries. One example is that payers fail to standardize forms, consuming limited physician time in having to deal with onerous billing procedures. Multiple payers do not coordinate their efforts with those providing care. Estimated waste in 2011: Between $107 billion and $389 billion.
  2. Overtreatment – Subjecting patients to care that cannot possibly help them – based on sound science and patient preferences. This care is “rooted in outmoded habits, supply-driven behaviors, and ignoring good science by providing excessive and inappropriate care. Examples include using excessive antibiotics and opioids, performing surgery when watchful waiting makes better sense, and unwanted intensive care at end-of-life for patients who don’t want this. Estimated waste in 2011: Between $158 billion and $226 billion.
  3. Fraud and abuse – Issuing fake bills and running scams to get paid by government and private payers. Estimated waste in 2011: Between $82 billion and $272 billion.
  4. Pricing failures – Well-functioning markets produce reasonable prices that come from actual costs of production plus a fair profit. In healthcare, due to lack of transparency and competition, prices are several times more than identical procedures in other countries. Pricing failure includes payer-based health services pricing, medication pricing, in addition to laboratory-based and ambulatory pricing. Estimated waste in 2011: Between 84 billion and $178 billion.
  5. Care delivery failures – This includes poor execution and lack of widespread adoption of known best care processes, such as for patient safety systems and preventive care practices and are known to be effective. Better care saves money. Estimated waste in 2011: Between $102 billion and $154 billion.
  6. Care coordination failures – Care in the U.S. is fragmented, meaning that patients fall through the cracks, resulting in complications, hospital readmissions, and declines in functional status requiring increased dependency. Estimated waste in 2011: Between $25 billion and $45 billion.

New JAMA Study Released about Waste

A new study published in JAMA finds that roughly 20 to 25 percent of American healthcare spending is wasteful. Although this finding is slightly less than findings mentioned above, the estimated waste is considered to be an astounding $760 billion to $935 billion per year – comparable to government spending on Medicare. This waste exceeds national military spending and total primary and secondary education spending. This study also addresses the same six categories of waste explained earlier.

Waste in Iowa Employer Health Insurance Premiums

In our recent 2019 Iowa Employer Benefits Study©, we found the average annual single and family health insurance premiums are now $7,017 and $19,335, respectively. Using the midpoint of 34 percent waste (a number from the Berwick study), the annual waste built into the Iowa single and family premiums are $2,386 and $6,574, respectively. This estimated waste reflects the amount employers and their employees overpay which generates income for providers, healthcare industry vendors, health systems, and health plans.

Applying the midpoint for each of the above six categories of waste, I was able to estimate each of the six cost components for the health insurance premiums paid by Iowa employers and their employees. Below is a graphic that depicts the total estimated waste found in both the single and family premiums based on the six waste categories described earlier.

Summary

By tolerating waste, we unknowingly create and sustain a rising burden of out-of-pocket expenses, suppressed take-home pay, delays of care and other side-effects that harm our care and well-being. As mentioned in the IHI’s ‘Call to Action,’ “…it’s not just money that’s being wasted. The most precious resources – the workforce’s time, spirit and joy – are being unnecessarily drained by wasteful processes every day…No matter how many medical breakthroughs achieved…if we don’t remove waste in health care, our health systems cannot thrive.”

Healthcare waste comes from many different sources, which require multiple strategies to reduce at least a fraction of waste described above. Berwick believes that healthcare waste must be attacked through political means, such as simplification of administrative services and pushing back on irrational pricing. Others believe that enhancing regulation of healthcare monopolies can also greatly help.

Frankly, too many ‘insiders’ are afraid to speak critically about their wasteful piece of the healthcare system, fearing loss of promotion, employment or obtaining lucrative consulting contracts. This fear allows the status quo to remain largely unchallenged.

Whatever the solutions, we must begin to have an honest national discussion about the massive waste we pay to others who see this as their revenue and income. A logical start is for voters to ask candidates how they propose to cut waste and simplify our healthcare system.

With 20 to 47 percent of our health insurance premium and out-of-pocket costs considered to be ‘wasteful’, I’m ready to have this discussion.  Are you?

To stay abreast of employee benefits, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

Rural Iowa Workers Outpace Urban Workers – But Not Favorably

I’m a sucker for playing with data, especially when it covers a relatively sizeable period of time. Over time, data usually tells a ‘story’ especially when drilling deeper. With the results of the latest 2019 Iowa Employer Benefits Study© now available, I tracked a few key cost comparisons as they relate to employees with single health coverage versus those with family coverage. More specifically, I found that Iowa workers employed by rural employers are paying higher healthcare costs – both in premiums and deductibles – compared to their urban counterparts.

Before concentrating on rural and urban data, I would like to share a few graphics comparing overall Iowa data from 2005 through 2019. This first graphic provides a comparison of how employee-only premiums have increased over 14 years of our study. Of note, this study was not performed in 2017.

Total Annual Spending – by Employee-Only Coverage

In 2005, the total annual premium for employee-only coverage was $3,708, of which the Iowa employer contributed $3,000 (or 81 percent of the total), and the employee pitched in $708 (19 percent of the total). In 2019, 15 years later, the total annual premium jumped by 89 percent to $7,020. The employer is now contributing $5,712 annually (up 90 percent), while the employee is chipping in $1,308 (up 174 percent).

Akin to the Ginsu knives commercial, there’s more. The deductibles purchased by Iowa employers increased from $750 in 2005 to $2,192 in 2019 – up 192 percent during that period. What is not covered on this graphic (please accept my apologies, Iowa-specific information is difficult to obtain) is the actual out-of-pocket money spent by Iowa employees for medical care each year.

Total Annual Spending – by Employee-Only Coverage

Total Annual Spending – by Family Coverage

Similar to the previous graphic on employee-only coverage, the family graphic that follows illustrates the continued ‘leakage’ from employee paychecks in the form of higher employee contributions and deductibles they are required to pay for covered services. However, in this graphic, I have included another layer of cost, thanks largely to Kaiser Family Foundation, that shows the national family out-of-pocket spending (based on employers with 1,000+ employees). Again, it would be very helpful to have Iowa-specific claims data, but I am forced to use national data as a replacement.

In 2005, the total annual premium for family coverage was $9,768, of which Iowa employers contributed $6,396 and the employee relinquished $3,372 through payroll deductions. In 2019, the total annual premium increased by almost $9,600 to $19,332 – an amount that would buy a 2019 Volkswagen Beetle. Additionally, family deductibles increased by 157 percent during that period, growing from $1,547 to $3,975.

Total Annual Spending – by Family Coverage

Employee-Only Coverage (Urban vs. Rural)

The next two graphics compare urban with rural employees, both employee-only and family coverages. Because studies from 2005 – 2011 did not breakout urban and rural data, the following graphics spans seven years (2012 – 2019).

In 2012, the total annual urban employee-only premium was $5,206, while the rural premium was $430 higher ($5,636). In 2019, the urban premium jumped by 29 percent to $6,723, while the rural premium increased by 32 percent to $7,413 – which is 10.3 percent higher than the average urban premium. Despite having a higher premium, the rural employee with single coverage has a higher deductible ($2,536) when compared to the average urban deductible ($1,888). Additionally, in 2019, the rural employee contributes $284 more annually for health coverage compared to urban employees.

Employee-Only Coverage (Urban vs. Rural)

Family Coverage (Urban vs. Rural)

Finally, the family premium for urban family employees jumped 60 percent from $11,980 in 2012 to $19,152 in 2019.  The rural family premium increased by 73 percent during this same period, and is now $402 higher than the average urban family premium. On average, rural employees contribute $812 more annually for health coverage compared to urban employees. As with employee-only deductibles, the average family deductible for rural employees ($4,370) is higher than the average urban deductible ($3,647).

Family Coverage (Urban vs. Rural)

In the final analysis, urban employees are more likely to pay less for their health coverage premiums, and when they seek medical care, will typically pay less out-of-pocket due to having lower deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums (not shown). This difference is also spelled out quite clearly when comparing the 2019 Lindex® scores between both groups – the urban employers scored a 78, while the rural employers scored four points less (74).

The Take-A-Way?

Without dispute, the cost of health insurance crowds out workers’ wages. The continuation of cost-shifting in healthcare deflates purchasing opportunities that workers and their families make elsewhere. On the surface, overall data found above can show trends happening for a particular population (see graphics one and two), yet when drilling down deeper with this same data, we find that other important – and disturbing –  issues are occurring (e.g. rural outcomes vs. urban outcomes).

Imagine what this data would show between selected industries, such as manufacturing vs. retail, or for-profit vs. non-profit. We did for 17 different Iowa sectors – it’s called the Lindex!

To stay abreast of employee benefits, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

Lindex® Score Remains Unchanged in 2019

Four color-coded quartiles represent the strength of benefits offered.

We’ve just released the new Lindex®scores based on our 2019 Iowa Employer Benefits Study©. Introduced in 2012, the Lindex is an innovative tool that allows Iowa employers to distill voluminous and complicated benefits data into one relevant number.

An organization’s Lindex score may help Iowa employers to:

  • Determine the competitiveness of their benefits package.
  • Attract and retain a high-quality workforce.
  • Decide whether benefit changes are required to keep your employee benefits competitive.

The Lindex is a composite score used as a reference when determining the quality of benefits offered by Iowa organizations. This index is the result of a sophisticated calculation based on the benefits data submitted by 999 Iowa organizations from the latest 2019 Iowa Employer Benefits Study©.

Calculated once a year, the Lindex ranges from 0 to 100, with low scores reflecting fewer benefits offered at a higher cost to employees, while higher scores indicate more benefits being offered at a competitive cost.

In 2019, the overall Lindex score for Iowa employers (regardless of employer size and industry) is 76 – which is unchanged from 2018.

The Lindex score will vary based on the employer size and industry, which are two determining factors that affect employee benefits. For example, employers with fewer than 10 employees have a Lindex score of 64, while employers with 1,000+ employees averaged 89.  Below is a summary graphic of the Lindex scores based on organization size:Employers in the construction industry averaged 64, while colleges and universities averaged a score of 92. Below is a summary graphic of the Lindex scores based on industry:The Lindex calculation began during the 2012 survey year. As depicted in the graphic below, between 2012 and 2015, the Lindex was calculated using five employer size categories: 2-9, 10-19, 20-49, 50-249, 250-999 and 1,000+. The top of the graphic provides the Lindex score based on size categories (by year), while directly below this is a color-coded chart showing the Lindex scores based on quartiles for each year. For example, the scores of the smallest organization-size category (2-9) is depicted in red, meaning this size typically scores in the lowest-scoring quartile. The scores of the next two size categories, 10-19 and 20-49, fell in the second quartile (orange). Without fail, the next size category of 50-249 scored in the third quartile (yellow), while organizations with over 250 employees were offering the most comprehensive benefits – noted in green, the fourth quartile.Beginning in 2016, the organization-size categories were altered somewhat, primarily to shadow many provisions found in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The graphic below depicts the average Lindex scores by organization size and the quartiles that each size category are found. The quartile results are similar to the results found in the previous graphic.Finally, with any selected industry, it is interesting to compare the Lindex scores by size categories.  As an example, the following graphic compares ‘for-profit’ organizations with ‘non-profit’ organizations. With the exception of organizations that have 1,000+ employees (both scored equally at 89), all ‘for-profit’ size categories scored less-favorably when compared to scores of ‘non-profit’ organizations (see graphic below).  Non-profit organizations clearly offer more comprehensive benefits than their for-profit counterparts.Should you wish to learn more about the Lindex, and how your organization can obtain your own Lindex calculation, please visit the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section of our website.

To stay abreast of employee benefits and healthcare issues, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.