|
The idea behind Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) is quite simple.
Individuals should be able to manage some of their own health care dollars
through accounts they own and control. They should be able to use these funds
to pay expenses not paid by third-party insurance, including the cost of out-of-network
doctors and diagnostic tests. They should be able to profit from being wise
consumers of medical care by having account balances grow tax free and eventually
be available for nonmedical purchases.
As of January 1, 2004, 250 million nonelderly Americans now have
access to HSAs, provided they are combined with catastrophic insurance.
Creating a Level Playing Field for Individual Self Insurance. Health
Savings Accounts are designed to help correct a major flaw in tax law that
distorts our entire health care system.
Every dollar an employer pays for employee health insurance premiums
avoids income and payroll taxes. For a middle-income employee, this generous
tax subsidy means that government is effectively paying for almost half the
cost of the health insurance. [See Figure I.] On the other hand, the government
taxes away almost half of every dollar employers put into savings accounts
for employees to pay their medical expenses directly. The result is a tax law
that lavishly subsidizes third-party insurance and severely penalizes individual
self-insurance. This encourages people to use third-party bureaucracies to
pay every medical bill, even though it often makes more sense for patients
to manage discretionary expenses themselves.
The new law, part of the recently enacted Medicare prescription
drug bill, gives deposits to HSAs the same tax advantages formerly granted
only to health insurance premiums. Employer and employee deposits to HSAs will
avoid all federal income and payroll taxes. When combined with individually
owned insurance, HSA deposits will be a deductible expense, even for income
tax filers who do not itemize.
Making Choices. Advances in medical science
have reached a point where we can probably spend the entire gross domestic
product on health care — in useful ways! The Cooper Clinic in Dallas now offers
a super-duper checkup (with a full body scan) for about $2,500 or more. If
everyone in America took advantage of this opportunity, we would increase our
nation's annual health care bill by one-half. There are more than 900 diagnostic
tests that can be done on blood alone, and one doesn't need too much imagination
to justify, say, $5,000 worth of tests each year. But if everyone did that
we would double the nation's health care spending. So how do we decide which
procedures are worthwhile and which are not?
There are basically only three ways. In other developed countries,
these decisions are made either directly or indirectly by government. But government-imposed
rationing is arbitrary, inefficient, unfair and probably unacceptable to most
Americans. The second method is to restrain spending using managed care techniques.
But during the 1990s voters expressed discomfort with having employers and
large insurers ration their health care. The third option is to allow individuals
to make their own choices between health care and other uses of money, through
a vehicle such as HSAs.
Restoring the Doctor-Patient Relationship. Patients
will make better choices if they can rely on doctors who put their interests
first. In a managed care world, doctors too often look to employers and insurers
for guidance in deciding how to practice medicine. In a very real sense, providers
view insurers rather than patients as their customers. With HSAs, however,
physicians will be free to act as the agents of their patients.
Expanding Options. Since 1996, a pilot program
has made Medical Savings Accounts available to small businesses and the self-employed.
But because of the many restrictions, only about 70,000 people have these accounts.
A U.S. Treasury Department ruling in 2002 allowed large companies to establish
Health Reimbursement Arrangements, and at last count, 1.5 million employees
had enrolled. But these accounts are also unreasonably restricted. Flexible
Spending Accounts offer consumers the chance to withhold funds tax free for
medical care. But these have a use-it-or-lose-it feature which requires employees
to forfeit unused funds to employers at the end of the year. This forfeiture
provision encourages employees to waste money on unnecessary care and makes
most people apprehensive about depositing money except when they can precisely
predict their future medical needs.
How HSAs Work. HSAs will be the most flexible,
consumer-friendly accounts yet devised. They will allow individuals and employers
to make deposits each year equal to their health insurance deductible. The
health insurance policy that accompanies an HSA must have an overall deductible
of at least $1,000 for an individual or $2,000 for a family policy. A typical
plan will work like this: When individuals enter the medical marketplace, they
will spend first from their HSA. [See Figure II.] If they exhaust their HSA
funds before reaching the deductible, they will then pay out-of-pocket. Once
they reach their deductible, insurance pays all remaining costs.
Annual HSA deposits cannot exceed the amount of the health insurance
deductible, and typically cannot exceed $2,600 for individuals and $5,150 for
families. However, the account balances can earn interest or be invested in
stocks or mutual funds, and they will grow tax free. Thus a young person could
accumulate hundreds of thousands of dollars by the time he or she retires.
HSA balances belong to the individual account holders and remain
theirs if they switch jobs, become unemployed or retire. The funds can be used
to pay expenses not covered by insurance, insurance premiums while unemployed
and health expenses during retirement. In the event of death, HSAs may be bequeathed
to a spouse, or (like an IRA) the funds may flow to other heirs.
Conclusion. The concept of HSAs is not conservative or liberal.
It's an empowerment idea. It should appeal to liberals who want an alternative
to HMO rationing. It should appeal to conservatives who want an alternative to
government rationing. It should appeal to everyone who suspects that impersonal
bureaucracies care less about us than we care about ourselves.
|