- In our "Look Ahead," we're focusing on the governor's
proposal to move to self-insurance for state
employees.
For that we welcome Lisa Ellinger, who is with the
Department of Employee Trust Funds, which administers
the health insurance plans.
Thanks for being here. - Sure.
- What does self-insurance mean for state employees
and their family members?
What changes are they likely to see?
- Sure. So what self-insurance refers to is a structure
where the employer pays directly for medical claims costs.
I think that might be easier to understand by explaining how
that it is different from what we do today.
Currently in our fully-insured environment, each year we
establish premium rates with the insurers that participate in our
program and every month we pay that premium and insurers pay
the medical claims as they come in.
As part of that relationship, those insurers also build in a
risk charge in the premium to compensate themselves for the
fact that they are absorbing the risk.
In a self-insured environment, what would change is we would
still be working with third-party administrators to
process claims, handle customer service, oversee the provider
networks that deliver services but the big difference is that
in that environment those TPAs would be billing the state
directly as those medical claims come in.
So the state would be assuming the risk.
And if I could just add to that, I think this is the most
important part of the discussion and the concern that is maybe
out there, because I think when people hear the term
self-insurance, a lot of times they start to think about
questions such as, "Will I still be able to see my doctor?
Will my benefits change?
Will my costs go up?"
And those are very important issues, but they are not
impacted by whether or not the state self-insures.
And I also think that people either forget or maybe aren't
aware that we already self-insurance significant
aspects of the state employee program.
Our pharmacy benefit, which is about 20% of our overall cost,
has been very successfully self-insured since 2004.
And last year we moved to self-insure our dental program
and our nationwide access medical plan has been
self-insured for decades.
So these aren't new concepts for the state employee program.
- But what we have seen from the insurance companies that are
electing to bid to offer some of that coverage is that not
everyone that's currently in the program is electing to bid and
there will be a lower number in some areas.
So there will be changes.
- There will be changes.
- And what that looks like is yet unknown, right?
- So there are some knowns and some unknowns.
I will say, to go to the point about the fact that some of our
current insurers did not compete, I think that's
important because we should point out the fact that for many
of them, our membership represents a very small part of
their book of business.
It might be 1,000, 2,000, 4,000 members.
So for those insurers, not participating in our program
will not have a dramatic impact to them.
To go to your point about the changes, yes, some of our
members will have to change health plans, but the important
point about that is we've found that our members are really
interested in whether they can maintain access to their primary
care provider.
And the analysis that was done as part of this decision shows
that 98% of the providers available today will still be
available in the restructured system.
In addition to that, more providers than are available
today will be available in the system.
And those are real numbers.
So while our members may have to change health plans, the vast
majority will not have to change their providers.
- Governor Walker says he expects to save about $60
million in just the first year and a half on this.
But past studies have shown that this could actually cost the
state tens or hundreds of millions depending on the number
of claims come in because the state takes on the risk if
there's a lot of claims.
- Right.
- So how realistic is the governor's number?
Is it just the most optimistic case?
- So let's start with those dueling actuaries studies.
You're absolutely right.
We've studied this issue a number of times over the past
several years and they did come up with wide-ranging estimates,
but what those actuaries agreed on was the fact that the only
way you could get at what the real potential cost savings were
would be to do a request for proposals or a competitive bid
process with binding contractual and cost information.
So that's part of the reason we did this.
With regards to the biennial budget estimate and what our
board has also suggested, $60 million over the biennium, I
think it's a very realistic target.
And where that comes from is our actuary provided a range of
estimates on the high end, low end and the midrange end based
on those bids that came in, but also their projections about
future health care costs and also assumptions about where our
members will move with these new vendors that are available.
And the $60 million number comes from that middle of the range
estimate.
So I think it's conservative and very realistic.
- With the state picking up the risk, we know in terms of
Medicaid if there's more claims, the state just has to pay more
money and that affects the rest of the budget.
In this case down the road if there's a bad year or a bad
couple years, will that just affect GPR spending and where
money comes from from the budget?
Because the state will have to pay it, right?
- I think focusing on the claims is the exact right area
to focus because that's the vast majority of health care costs.
Administrative fees are just a fraction.
So, first of all, we have several provisions in the
contracts that are focused on performance guarantees to focus
on future claims costs growth, and as we go into negotiating
the contracts in the weeks and months ahead, this is also going
to be an area of focus where we want to put protections in place
to make sure the state is protected from that future cost
growth.
- One of the other concerns that a lot of Republicans in the
legislature have and outside groups specifically insurance
companies, is disruption to the private health care marketplace.
By taking this many employees away from what had been a
private marketplace and putting them under this plan, there may
not be as many customers left for some of their companies,
which could cause them to raise their prices for everyone else
or go out of business.
- Right.
And we've talked about this a little bit already but I pointed
out earlier that several of the insurers that chose not to
compete, we're very small to them in terms of the membership
that we steer their way.
But I also want to go back to that 98% of provider access
number because what that means is all those providers we work
with today will still be participating in our program, as
well as the hospitals they work with, the health systems they
work for.
And so the vast majority of participants that participate
today in our program will still be part of that.
We'll just be doing it with fewer insurers than we do today.
- And if there are big claim years in the future, will that
affect premiums?
Will the state look to raise premiums on their employees?
- So the hope is no.
We are establishing a reserve policy, and currently the fund
already has a very stable, healthy reserve that we have
built over the past couple of years in anticipation of moving
toward a self-insured program.
So that reserve is there to help in the event that we do
experience blips in claims costs.
- And we've only got a few seconds left, but -- this is
kind of a broad question, but there's a lot of uncertainty in
health care today with the possible repeal of the
Affordable Care Act in Washington and obviously
Wisconsin moving to self-insurance.
What are people thinking?
How concerned should they be about what it means for them and
their access for their families to get the care they need?
- That's an excellent point because I think there's a lot of
focus on our program today and the changes that maybe we're
causing in the health insurance market.
But the truth of the matter is the different mergers,
acquisitions, partnerships we're seeing have been happening for
years and will continue into the foreseeable future and are
caused by things that are above and beyond the state employee
health insurance program.
- All right, Lisa Ellinger, thank you for your time.