Executive Memorandum #598
Executive Memorandum- Heritage's Executive Memoranda gives Congressional staff and researchers the policy information they need to act and to make educated decisions.
Various Members of Congress are taking
serious steps to help American families gain access to quality
health care. Most recently, Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ)
introduced the Patients' Health Care Choice Act of 1999 (H.R.
1687), which includes a number of proposals designed to improve
access to health insurance. If Congress is intent on reducing the
ranks of the uninsured and providing a higher quality health
delivery system for all, it should examine the policies in this
legislation.
Today's employer-based health insurance
system does not serve the needs of all working families. A product
of the 1940s, when employers competed for scarce workers by
offering health benefits, the system grew rapidly, largely because
of its favorable tax treatment: An employer's contribution to an
employee's health insurance premiums is tax-free for both employer
and employee. The same tax treatment is not granted to individuals
who must, or wish to, purchase health insurance outside the
employer-based system. This disparate tax treatment is unfair; it
discriminates against the un-
employed and those who work for small businesses by making them pay
for health insurance with after-tax dollars. The policies in H.R.
1687 address this inequity by creating five vehicles for the
purchase of health insurance:
-
Tax Credits
A refundable tax credit would be created for the purchase of health
coverage. It would cover 100 percent of the cost of coverage up to
$500 for individuals and $1,000 for families. It would be
restricted to workers whose employers make no contributions for
individual or family coverage, and to the unemployed.
-
Individual Membership
Associations (IMAs)
An affinity group, such as the American Bar Association, the
University of Arizona Alumni Association, or any other bona fide
group in existence for at least five years, would be exempted from
state mandates and allowed to offer health benefits packages to its
members, regardless of state of residence. A member of an IMA--even
one who might change jobs frequently--could buy the IMA's health
plan without fear of losing it when he or she changed jobs. The
member could use the tax credit toward the cost of such
coverage.
-
HealthMarts
A HealthMart is a private organization, similar in concept to a
supermarket, to which employers and employees within a certain area
would go to purchase health insurance. Under H.R. 1687, a
HealthMart would have to offer the same insurance policies and
prices to all employers and employees, regardless of health, and
would act as a kind of
clearinghouse for insurers to sell their products, reducing
administrative costs.
Employers, if they so chose, would offer
employees the ability to opt out of employer-provided insurance. An
employee would be given a voucher by the employer in an amount
equivalent to what the employer would contribute to his or her
employer-provided health plan (actuarially adjusted). The employee
could use that voucher at a HealthMart to purchase a desired health
plan. The value of the voucher would be excluded from the
employee's taxable compensation, just as employer-sponsored
insurance is excluded today. If the employee bought coverage that
cost less than the value of the voucher, the extra money could be
placed in a medical savings account (MSA).
-
Association Health Plans
(AHPs)
H.R. 1687 would enable small-business trade associations to band
together across state lines to purchase health insurance policies
just as big Fortune 500 companies do. Small-business owners and
their employees in, say, the National Federation of Independent
Business (NFIB) could access health insurance plans offered through
NFIB regardless of their state of residence, much like the
identical plans General Motors offers its employees in multiple
states. An extension of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) would enable trade associations to do this without
having to deal with different state mandates. Many small-business
owners today cannot afford the expense, in time or money, to seek
out and offer appropriate insurance plans for their employees. As a
result, a significant number of the uninsured are people who work
for small businesses. Allowing small-business owners to offer plans
in this manner would extend health coverage to many working but
currently uninsured Americans. An individual could use the tax
credit toward the cost of this coverage.
-
Expanded Medical Savings
Accounts
H.R. 1687 expands access to medical savings accounts by repealing
the artificial limit on the number of MSAs and other restrictions,
and allowing all employers to offer them, not just small employers.
The best feature of an MSA is that the patient is free to visit any
doctor, anywhere and at any time.
The
primary problem for patients is that they do not own their health
insurance policies. In this unique employer-based system, employers
choose what plans to offer their employees. These choices do not
always conform to what is in the best interest of each employee.
Because the current tax system is weighted so strongly in favor of
employer-provided insurance, it is rare for employees who are
offered insurance at work to choose to purchase health insurance on
their own. The result: an insurance market in which plans are
responsive to the needs of the employer, not the consumer.
Tax
credits would begin to reduce the inequity in the tax code.
Shifting decision-making power to individuals would allow people to
buy plans that meet their personal needs. Consumer choice empowers
employees to "fire" a poorly performing health plan. Such choice
would eliminate many of the arguments for a "patients' bill of
rights," because individuals and families would be able to pick
better and less restrictive plans. The policies embodied in H.R.
1687 would offer working families an expanded array of choices, and
with choice comes empowerment: the ability of people to pick the
health insurance plans and physicians they want without incurring
tax penalties for choosing wisely.
James Frogue was a former Health
Care Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation.