That's the topic of this Market Watch article by Jan Wieczner. Here's an excerpt:
Car insurance companies reward good behavior: Drivers with records free
of 15-car pileups and tickets for doing 90 in a 55 pay cheaper premiums.
Health insurers, on the other hand, offer people little incentive to
stay out of harm’s (and doctor’s) way. But a growing number of health
advocates say this is a mistake, and that the system would function
better if bodies were treated more like Buicks. * * * Some Fortune 500 companies and other employers — from JetBlue to IBM to
equipment manufacturer Caterpillar — have begun to experiment with new
health-care models that allow employees to keep some of the money they
don’t spend on health care, or that reward or penalize them based on how
well they manage their health. Many of these plans more closely resemble auto insurance — with
healthier employees effectively paying less than colleagues who are at
greater risk for developing diseases related to smoking or obesity. For
example, 38% of companies planned to charge higher premiums or
deductibles in 2012 to employees who smoked, had high cholesterol
levels, did not actively treat a chronic condition like diabetes or high
blood pressure or failed on other health measures, according to Towers
Watson — the same way people with speeding tickets pay higher auto
insurance rates to compensate the plan for their greater risk of car
Hmmm. I wonder whether in the end a supposed focus on health management would really mean little else than sick people pay more.
0 thoughts on “Differential Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Costs Based on “Health Management””
The issue become a larger issue when you find out how they compute the short term short rate penalty.
Thanks so much for sharing this information with me! I have been looking into eaton differentials and how they might be able to help me! I know my husband has been needing them! Can you tell me where I might be able to find more information like this? Thanks again!