PDA

View Full Version : Economics "Safeway" healthcare plan


sportsshrink
06-18-2009, 12:29 AM
How Safeway Is Cutting Health-Care Costs
Market-based solutions can reduce the national health-care bill by 40%


By STEVEN A. BURD
Effective health-care reform must meet two objectives: 1) It must secure coverage for all Americans, and 2) it must dramatically lower the cost of health care. Health-care spending has outpaced the rise in all other consumer spending by nearly a factor of three since 1980, increasing to 18% of GDP in 2009 from 9% of GDP. This disturbing trend will not change regardless of who pays these costs -- government or the private sector -- unless we can find a way to improve the health of our citizens. Failure to do so will make American companies less competitive in the global marketplace, increase taxes, and undermine our economy.

At Safeway we believe that well-designed health-care reform, utilizing market-based solutions, can ultimately reduce our nation's health-care bill by 40%. The key to achieving these savings is health-care plans that reward healthy behavior. As a self-insured employer, Safeway designed just such a plan in 2005 and has made continuous improvements each year. The results have been remarkable. During this four-year period, we have kept our per capita health-care costs flat (that includes both the employee and the employer portion), while most American companies' costs have increased 38% over the same four years.


Martin Kozlowski
Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.

As much as we would like to take credit for being a health-care innovator, Safeway has done nothing more than borrow from the well-tested automobile insurance model. For decades, driving behavior has been correlated with accident risk and has therefore translated into premium differences among drivers. Stated somewhat differently, the auto-insurance industry has long recognized the role of personal responsibility. As a result, bad behaviors (like speeding, tickets for failure to follow the rules of the road, and frequency of accidents) are considered when establishing insurance premiums. Bad driver premiums are not subsidized by the good driver premiums.

As with most employers, Safeway's employees pay a portion of their own health care through premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The big difference between Safeway and most employers is that we have pronounced differences in premiums that reflect each covered member's behaviors. Our plan utilizes a provision in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that permits employers to differentiate premiums based on behaviors. Currently we are focused on tobacco usage, healthy weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

Safeway's Healthy Measures program is completely voluntary and currently covers 74% of the insured nonunion work force. Employees are tested for the four measures cited above and receive premium discounts off a "base level" premium for each test they pass. Data is collected by outside parties and not shared with company management. If they pass all four tests, annual premiums are reduced $780 for individuals and $1,560 for families. Should they fail any or all tests, they can be tested again in 12 months. If they pass or have made appropriate progress on something like obesity, the company provides a refund equal to the premium differences established at the beginning of the plan year.

At Safeway, we are building a culture of health and fitness. The numbers speak for themselves. Our obesity and smoking rates are roughly 70% of the national average and our health-care costs for four years have been held constant. When surveyed, 78% of our employees rated our plan good, very good or excellent. In addition, 76% asked for more financial incentives to reward healthy behaviors. We have heard from dozens of employees who lost weight, lowered their blood-pressure and cholesterol levels, and are enjoying better health because of this program. Many discovered for the first time that they have high blood pressure, and others have been told by their doctor that they have added years to their life.

Today, we are constrained by current laws from increasing these incentives. We reward plan members $312 per year for not using tobacco, yet the annual cost of insuring a tobacco user is $1,400. Reform legislation needs to raise the federal legal limits so that incentives can better match the true incremental benefit of not engaging in these unhealthy behaviors. If these limits are appropriately increased, I am confident Safeway's per capita health-care costs will decline for at least another five years as our work force becomes healthier.

The Healthy Measures program currently applies only to our nonunion work force. While we have numerous health and wellness provisions in our union contracts, we are working with union leaders like Joe Hansen of the United Food and Commercial Workers to incorporate healthy measures provisions in our union work force as well.

While comprehensive health-care reform needs to address a number of other key issues, we believe that personal responsibility and financial incentives are the path to a healthier America. By our calculation, if the nation had adopted our approach in 2005, the nation's direct health-care bill would be $550 billion less than it is today. This is almost four times the $150 billion that most experts estimate to be the cost of covering today's 47 million uninsured. The implication is that we can achieve health-care reform with universal coverage and declining per capita health-care costs.

There is a very real possibility that we will see positive transformational health-care reform in the near future. I am encouraged by the effort I see on Capitol Hill, particularly the bipartisan effort in the Senate. While some tough issues remain, if we continue to work in a bipartisan manner I believe we will resolve these issues successfully and find agreement on meaningful reform.

Mr. Burd is CEO of Safeway Inc., and the founder of the Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform.

SBK
06-18-2009, 07:25 AM
Mr. Burd is going to be out of a job soon, fired by Obama for informing the public about this.

HonestChieffan
06-18-2009, 09:00 AM
Private enterprise and common sense cannot be tolerated. Its all the fault of big drug!!

Mr. Flopnuts
06-18-2009, 09:04 AM
As a smoker and a fat ass I approve this model. Well, provided people get off my ass about how I live my life. I'll happily pay my fair share of the burden. I understand that my lifestyle choices come at a cost. Unfortunately, most Americans have a great, big, insatiable entitlement issue.

jiveturkey
06-18-2009, 10:12 AM
I like this model too.

tooge
06-18-2009, 10:25 AM
It's a great model. Unfortunately, some fat assed smoker will get cancer and sue them for not paying enough for them to get better with medical treatment.

FishingRod
06-18-2009, 10:33 AM
As a smoker and a fat ass I approve this model. Well, provided people get off my ass about how I live my life. I'll happily pay my fair share of the burden. I understand that my lifestyle choices come at a cost. Unfortunately, most Americans have a great, big, insatiable entitlement issue.

I resemble your comments and I concur.

HonestChieffan
06-18-2009, 10:36 AM
Imagine this approach with public employees. A walk through our courthouse is like going to the set of biggest loser. More twinkies in the drawers than silly forms.

They would have their union shut it down in a heartbeat and go back to the 64 ounce biggie mountain dews they all have. Thats after the breaks.

Otis99
06-18-2009, 12:19 PM
There really is no mention in the original post about how good their actual coverage is, i.e. what type of "out of pocket" costs (other than the premiums) each member is subject to. I'd be interested to know what their co-pays or deductibles looked like, and how comprehensive the coverage was.

To use an example, a few years ago I had to have my appendix out. I was in and out of the hospital in less than 24 hours. Total cost? $25,000. My out of pocket cost (premiums aside) was a co-pay of $100.

On a lot of health plans, this same operation may have covered 80% or 90% of the $25,000, up to some sort of out of pocket maximum that could reach into the thousands. This is what kills you (financially speaking). An office visit, a prescription drug, that sort of thing can nickle and dime a person to death (so to speak), particularly if they are in poor health (overweight, smoker, etc.), but if something happens that puts you into the hospital for a couple of days, you are basically screwed if you don't have good coverage.

Surgery like an appendectomy really does not come about as a result of a person's overall health. This type of procedure or something similar is something everyone is likely to have to deal with in their life, perhaps on multiple occasions (i.e. I had my tonsils out a couple of years ago, at a similar cost).

It's great to use the premiums as a way to encourage people to be healthier, but it doesn't address the underlying problem of routine surgery costing tens of thousands of dollars.

jAZ
06-18-2009, 12:28 PM
What's the point of tying this to employers exactly?

irishjayhawk
06-18-2009, 01:45 PM
This is the type of plan that should be offered everywhere by everyone. It makes perfect sense and it provides built in incentives.

After that, I'd start looking at why some diseases are "uninsurable." Maybe I'm too idealistic but something as basic as health insurance (basic because without it you're generally screwed in our system) should cover someone no matter what - especially for conditions/diseases they cannot control. They collect premiums on people who almost never have to use their insurance. I think that can cover some of these uninsurables and still have a nice profit.

HonestChieffan
06-18-2009, 02:01 PM
What's the point of tying this to employers exactly?

Well for those who wont get jobs or enjoy being professional students, its a good reward for being productive rather than sucking off the government tit.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-18-2009, 02:34 PM
Well for those who wont get jobs or enjoy being professional students, its a good reward for being productive rather than sucking off the government tit.

Would you prefer that a woman sucking off the government tit have an abortion to enable her to work a full time job?

HonestChieffan
06-18-2009, 02:39 PM
Would you prefer that a woman sucking off the government tit have an abortion to enable her to work a full time job?

Is abortion the issue? Many moms work full time.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-18-2009, 02:48 PM
Is abortion the issue? Many moms work full time.

But they have the government subsidize their health care which means they're sucking off the government tit. I'm genuinely curious of your position here.

HonestChieffan
06-18-2009, 02:52 PM
But they have the government subsidize their health care which means they're sucking off the government tit. I'm genuinely curious of your position here.


who does?


what does this have to do with the issue?

I dont support abortion. I know its an option but no need for the taxpayer to pay for abortions for anyone.

Do you have issues with mothers working? Many do.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-18-2009, 03:09 PM
who does?


what does this have to do with the issue?

I dont support abortion. I know its an option but no need for the taxpayer to pay for abortions for anyone.

Do you have issues with mothers working? Many do.

It's completely unrelated to the topic. I concede that. I ask because I hear you lamenting over people sucking off of the government tit quite a bit. I agree with the sentiment but I believe there are exceptions to the rule. I'm not trying to bait you here, I was genuinely interested in your stance on that. Are there exceptions to the rule where it's okay to receive some government assistance? Or should it not be a viable option at all? If not at all, how do you propose single mothers feed their children? They can't take them to work. Just a hypothetical, if you're not comfortable with it that's fine. I realize I was being vague and apologize for it.

Whoarethechefs
06-18-2009, 03:11 PM
I think this shit is the start of going down the o'l slippery slope myself.

I can see it now...... After a DNA test it is found that I have a genetic tendency for heart disease, alcoholism and chronic Fart syndrome. I'm told that I have to pay a premium for coverage because some day I may just explode. =/

Saul Good
06-18-2009, 04:51 PM
Would you prefer that a woman sucking off the government tit have an abortion to enable her to work a full time job?

Those are the only two options?

sportsshrink
07-16-2009, 11:40 PM
I'm tellin ya this is the way to go in reforming our 'healthcare'.

googlegoogle
07-17-2009, 12:44 AM
Stupid to force Employers to pay health insurance.

JohnnyV13
07-17-2009, 03:36 AM
It's a great model. Unfortunately, some fat assed smoker will get cancer and sue them for not paying enough for them to get better with medical treatment.

I suspect the coverage is the same, its just that the fat assed smoker pays more for it. Seems reasonable to me. Make people pay their way, and many of them will have incentive to change their behavior.

It's sort of like when you are the one paying the power bill, you actually start doing things to use less.

Garcia Bronco
07-17-2009, 08:17 AM
"The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior"


If this line doesn't scare you, then you are doing it wrong.

donkhater
07-17-2009, 08:55 AM
1) must secure coverage for all Americans,

I hesitated to read anymore after this ridiculous statement.

Healthcare reform must aid in providing ACCESS to healthcare for all Americans---not secure it.