In our first edition on health reform, we reviewed the impact of the health reform law on corporate health and productivity initiatives. This issue of CareNotes examines the law’s effect on Consumer Directed Health Plans (CDHPs).
Due to expected increases in health care premiums, employers are once again considering CDHPs as a viable health plan option. The following reviews the various types of CDHPs, and updates the information with health reform provisions and effective dates.
Making it Personal
Personal health accounts placed limited health care decision-making in the hands of the consumer. The earliest personal health accounts were Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), introduced in 1978, and Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) introduced in 1997, now called Archer MSAs.
The CDHP model evolved to give even more control to the health care purchaser through Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs) and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Notable differences between an HRA and HSA include the following.
| Feature |
Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) |
Health Savings Account (HSA) |
| Account owner |
Employer |
Employee |
| High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) |
Not required |
Required |
| Portability |
Not required |
Required |
| Contribution limits |
Set by employer |
Set by I.R.S. |
| Rollover of funds |
Not required |
Required |
A Clear Cry for Transparency
A rallying cry for CDHPs and health care reform is the need for transparency. The principle behind CDHPs is providing the consumer with more transparency in cost and quality of care to increase competition and enable informed health care decision-making.
The transparency requirements from the health reform law focus primarily on health care providers and manufacturers including drug and medical device manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, skilled nursing services and ancillary services of physicians.
How much transparency have CDHPs provided? Many industry experts feel it is too early to tell. In a recent Issue Brief, Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), a nonpartisan research organization, stated, “…there are many unanswered questions about these plans.” So far, the studies show no impact on the utilization of preventive services for CDHPs and some impact on prescription utilization, including:
- Decrease in overall use of brand name drugs
- Increased use of generic drugs
- Increased use of mail-order prescriptions
- Some decrease in adherence to prescribed medication for certain conditions
Part of the information problem, however, has been that much of the focus centered on Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRA), with little research on Health Savings Accounts (HSA). That is unfortunate, as the trend has seen a rise in HSAs in recent years.
HSAs on the Rise
A census survey, conducted by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), targeted HSAs with data collected from 93 health insurance companies and showed 10 million people enrolled in HSAs.
The EBRI Issue Brief reports a combined enrollment for HRAs and HSAs of 19.1 million people.
The AHIP survey also shows that HSAs are not limited to a specific market. HSAs accounted for 11 percent of all new health insurance sold in January 2010 in the individual, small and large group market.
EBRI suggests CDHPs need further research, particularly HSAs. An area not yet explored is what impact various levels of contributions have on spending and the use of services. Are consumers more likely to increase utilization with higher contributions or save funds for more serious health issues?
Health Reform and Personal Health Care Accounts
In the early debates on health care reform, there were discussion on eliminating Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) and Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRA). Like many early proposals, that action did not make it to the final legislation. Some industry experts think that may still happen; however, for now, all of the options remain in place.
Some provisions of the health reform law apply to all personal health care accounts, while others affect specific types of accounts.
Applies to All Personal Health Care Accounts
The following new provisions apply to FSAs, Archer MSAs, HRAs and HSAs.
- Qualified Medical Expenses – There was a change in the definition. Many over-the-counter (OTC) medications are no longer eligible expenses, unless there is a doctor’s prescription. Recently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2010-59 that provides guidance on the definition. Effective Date: January 1, 2011
- Excise Tax – Employer contributions to personal health care account plans are included when calculating the benefit value for high-cost “Cadillac health plans.” Effective Date: 2018
- Maximum Contribution – The new law added a cap of $2,500 annually for contributions to an FSA health care account. Effective Date: January 1, 2013
- Tax Penalty– The tax penalty for account funds used for non-qualified or non-health expenses increased from 10 percent (HSAs) and 15 percent (Archer MSAs) to 20 percent. Effective Date: January 1, 2011
Applies to FSAs Only
- Maximum Contribution – The new law added a cap of $2,500 annually for contributions to an FSA health care account. Effective Date: January 1, 2013
Applies to HSAs and MSAs
- Tax Penalty– The tax penalty for account funds used for non-qualified or non-health expenses increased from 10 percent (HSAs) and 15 percent (Archer MSAs) to 20 percent. Effective Date: January 1, 2011
Other Things Employers Need to Know About CDHPs
When considering CDHPs, there are certain requirements in addition to those already discussed. First, an employee cannot enroll in both an HSA and FSA or HRA, except for a “limited purpose” or “post-deductible” FSA/HRA.
A “limited purpose” FSA/HRA covers things like certain preventive care, vision and dental expenses, but not medical expenses. A “post-deductible” FSA/HRA only reimburses medical expenses after satisfying the minimum annual deductible set by the IRS.
Any change to an existing plan requires modification of plan documents, including the new definition for qualified over-the-counter medication.
Employee Communications – The second critical consideration for CDHPs is employee communication. Not only is communication required for the changes from health reform, but also employee engagement communication for CDHPs is critical.
One of the best examples of the impact of effective communication is a recent six-year study conducted by Aetna. Over a 5-year period, employers offering Aetna’s CDHP obtained $7 million per 10,000 members in savings. Those employers that offered the CDHP alongside best-in-class strategies for engaging employees saved $23 million per 10,000 members in savings. An additional savings of $16 million is certainly worth the investment in communications.
CDHPs have many moving parts. Throw in the health reform changes and it underscores the need for careful consideration. It requires planning, focus and ongoing monitoring – but, then employers that sponsor health plans understand that all too well.
Notice of Disclaimer –Intercare Insurance Solutions is not an attorney or tax firm and cannot provide legal or tax advice. The information provided is for your general background only, and is not intended to constitute legal or tax advice as to your specific circumstances. We recommend you review legislation and tax issues with your legal or tax counsel.