320 Years of History
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #21
A couple quick points because that's all I have time for right now.
Pay higher salaries and tell potential employees that "we pay more, but don't offer health coverage." I think were my firm to offer, say, $5K-$10K more per year in salary than do our insurance offering competitors, applicants would see that as ample compensation for the lack of a health care benefit. Given the quantity of new hires we have each year and our cost to offer health care insurance, we'd either break even or come out a tiny bit ahead doing that (hard to say right now; it's been a few years since I saw that analysis and the benefits landscape changes far too quickly for me to just keep up with it), especially insofar as we pay fully for the coverage of our employees (they pay @$35/month per adult dependent, and $15 for minors, if they elect to obtain that coverage via the firm). Hell, we'd cut at least @250K/year just by reducing the staff in the HR department who manage the health care benefits. Even more would be saved by not having to administer the firm's infrastructure components that support providing health insurance info, analysis and enrollment tools to our employees.
In short, there are alternatives to offering health insurance as a way to attract workers. The salary alternative is just one alternative. Employers who are willing to get creative have lots of alternatives.
It's worth noting that a few companies actually earn money because their employees participate in the health insurance plans they offer. Those companies are huge, however, and the sums earned aren't "Earth shaking," but they do pay for the cost of administering the companies' health care benefit offerings and leaves a few hundred grand in miscellaneous earnings.
I think what you mean is "defensive" medicine. I see the correlation now. "Preventive" medicine is stuff like getting physicals, regular breast exams, teeth cleaned regularly, etc.
Businesses today voluntarily take on the costs associated with offering group health insurance policies/coverage to their employees.
Only because they have to. In order to attract, motivate and retain good employees, employers know they have little choice but to at least consider offering health coverage because their competition is. My +/- 100 business owner clients struggle with both the costs of coverage and the cost of regulation/administration daily.
Pay higher salaries and tell potential employees that "we pay more, but don't offer health coverage." I think were my firm to offer, say, $5K-$10K more per year in salary than do our insurance offering competitors, applicants would see that as ample compensation for the lack of a health care benefit. Given the quantity of new hires we have each year and our cost to offer health care insurance, we'd either break even or come out a tiny bit ahead doing that (hard to say right now; it's been a few years since I saw that analysis and the benefits landscape changes far too quickly for me to just keep up with it), especially insofar as we pay fully for the coverage of our employees (they pay @$35/month per adult dependent, and $15 for minors, if they elect to obtain that coverage via the firm). Hell, we'd cut at least @250K/year just by reducing the staff in the HR department who manage the health care benefits. Even more would be saved by not having to administer the firm's infrastructure components that support providing health insurance info, analysis and enrollment tools to our employees.
In short, there are alternatives to offering health insurance as a way to attract workers. The salary alternative is just one alternative. Employers who are willing to get creative have lots of alternatives.
- Mortgage loans or loan assistance in lieu of health insurance.
- Reimbursement for any number of other costs employees may incur in lieu of health insurance.
- Guaranteed tuition reimbursement up to a given sum in lieu of health insurance.
It's worth noting that a few companies actually earn money because their employees participate in the health insurance plans they offer. Those companies are huge, however, and the sums earned aren't "Earth shaking," but they do pay for the cost of administering the companies' health care benefit offerings and leaves a few hundred grand in miscellaneous earnings.
Tort reform that addresses not only the cost of malpractice insurance, but the even higher cost of preventive medicine -- Please explain how tort reform "addresses" the cost of preventive medicine?
As high as malpractice insurance premiums are, they pale in comparison to the costs of "preventive medicine", the over-testing and over-diagnosing done to protect the provider from a lawsuit down the road. If Tort Reform better protected the provider, average diagnostic costs would decrease, at least somewhat.
I think what you mean is "defensive" medicine. I see the correlation now. "Preventive" medicine is stuff like getting physicals, regular breast exams, teeth cleaned regularly, etc.