How the liberal health care agenda undermines employer-based health coverage – Herald & Review

How the liberal health care agenda undermines employer-based health coverage - Herald & Review

Negotiations on “Build Back Better,” the Biden administration’s trillion-dollar social welfare package, have collapsed. But the exercise demonstrated that the left has not abandoned its quest to supplant private health insurance with government-run health care.

That’s disturbing for several reasons. The majority of Americans get their health care coverage from their place of work, and employer-based health plans tend to offer patients greater access to a broader range of health care providers and services.

While most Americans still get their health coverage through employer-based plans, the number doing so is declining. In 2000, two-thirds of non-elderly Americans got their coverage through their employers. By 2018, that number had declined to 58%. The decline in employer-based coverage was most prevalent among those earning less than four times the federal poverty level ($51,520 in 2021).

While several factors have contributed to this trend, government policies have played a key role. The left’s bid to cripple the private health insurance market took a big step forward with passage of Obamacare. Among other things, the Affordable Care Act introduced middle-class subsidies for government-run health care. Between 2014, when the law took full effect, and 2016, enrollment in employer-based coverage dropped by 3.6 million.

People are also reading…

The Build Back Better proposal would have altered the health coverage landscape once again. It would have created a new government-run health program, made existing Obamacare subsidies more generous and extended them to more people, regardless of income. It also proposed easing the requirements to qualify for subsidies for those with access to employer-based coverage.

See also  A Windfall in Health Insurance Rebates? It’s Not as Crazy as It Sounds

These and other changes would have steered more people out of their existing coverage and toward the government-run plan. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the policies embedded in the Build Back Better plan would result in 2.8 million fewer people with employer-based coverage.

And that’s problematic.

Employer-based health plans typically offer more medical providers to choose from and access to more medical services than government plans do. A 2021 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that “Sixty-seven percent of covered workers in firms offering health benefits work in firms that offer one or more PPOs.” In contrast, a Heritage Foundation report found that last year only 15% of Obamacare plans offered PPOs (down from 57% in 2014).

Job-based coverage has also been a testing ground for innovative strategies for health care delivery, improving outcomes and controlling costs.

A recent survey of large employers found that 76% of employers plan to keep telehealth benefits put in place during COVID; over half are considering adding on-site clinics. New initiatives focused on price transparency and value-based purchasing are also on the rise.

These favorable developments do not mean there are no problems with employer-based coverage. The unlimited, tax-free benefits contribute to rising premiums and costs. Its design disproportionately benefits highly compensated employees with large tax liabilities. Moreover, tethering health care coverage to the place of work denies personal ownership, limits coverage portability, and does not easily accommodate a changing labor market, leaving many out altogether.

These shortcomings can be overcome by modernizing employer-based coverage through consumer-centered reforms. And that’s a far wiser course than the government-based approach of the Left.

See also  Empleadores se preocupan por la salud mental, pero no hay suficientes proveedores

Build Back Better was just the tip of the iceberg in the left’s drive to undermine the private health insurance market and herd everyone into government-run health programs. Broader efforts, like “Medicare for all” and the so-called “public option,” would ultimately eliminate employer-based coverage as we know it.

Nina Owcharenko Schaefer is a senior research fellow specializing in health care policy at The Heritage Foundation.