Okay, so it’s no secret that the individual mandate included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act isn’t going to win any popularity contests — nor is most of the law, for that matter.
However, Americans aren’t blowing raspberries on PPACA in its entirety, according to a recent poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. In its monthly tracking poll, the foundation asked people to reveal their most liked and disliked PPACA provisions.
The runaway winner for most favored? The requirement that health plans provide consumers with a short, easy to understand description of benefits and coverage — favored by some 60% of people polled. It was the only provision in the entire law to be rated favorably by more than half of respondents.
The rest of the top 10 most liked provisions are:
2. Guaranteed issue. (47%)
3. Gradually close Medicare “donut hole.” (46%)
4. Tax credits to small businesses. (45%)
5. Subsidy assistance to individuals. (44%)
6. Health plan decision appeals. (37%)
7. Employer mandate/penalty for large employers. (35%)
8. Medicaid expansion. (34%)
9. Medical loss ratio. (34%)
10. No cost-sharing for preventive services. (33%)
In a blog post, KFF President and CEO Drew Altman notes that the most favored provisions share a common thread: “You do not have to be a health policy expert to understand them. They provide tangible help to people navigating the health insurance system and paying their health insurance bills.”
What do you think? If you had to create a top 10 list of favored PPACA provisions, what would be on it? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Already Registered?
If you have already registered to Employee Benefit Views, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immediately be directed to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
8 Comment(s)
Posted by: Intrepidfi | December 5, 2011 5:16 PM
@Kew, whats stopping you from dumping your group plan now? Its because it s a benefit to your employees.
Report this Comment
Posted by: Jay K | December 5, 2011 3:57 PM
As noted below - there is no free lunch. Yet, everything that people like is touted as just that.
Report this Comment
Posted by: Don R | December 5, 2011 3:40 PM
The results of this poll are predictable. People always want more, they just don't realize that increasing benefits isn't free. It's really just simple common sense; get more, pay more!!! There is no limit to what the government can mandate and what the resulting cost will be. Where do people think the out-of-control health insurance costs come from, the failure of the private sector? Wrong! Never ending government mandates and regulation is the real source. I've watched and had to deal with this reality for 38 years in the insurance business. It is a repeating pattern of publicizing an erroneously overstated or fabricated inequity or problem, blame the private health care and insurance industries for failing to serve their constituencies, mandating a government solution to alledgedly help or bring equity to the masses which always, without exception, adds cost and complexity to the system which leads to more problems and inequities which are, once again, blamed on the failure of the private sector which then spawns new mandates and regulations and the cycle keeps repeating itself. Please ask yourself the question, could there be an agenda here? Could it be fully nationalized health care? As a matter of indisputable fact, it is! We need to wake up! KEW, What you have missed is that the obviously good deal you have identified is also part of the agenda to convert many more private market insureds into the government sponsored exchanges where, if they can meet the ludicrous qualification criteria, they will be subsidized by the government thereby moving them onto the ever-increasing roles of those receiving handouts from the government and they will then become constituents that will support the politicians who give them the handouts. Fully nationalized health care has never been salable all at one time, so while we watch, feel sorry for ourselves, forget about free-market principles and ask for more benefits in polls, we are getting it incrementally.
Report this Comment
Posted by: Guy360JMK | December 5, 2011 3:38 PM
Hello, KEW. I have some thoughts (your post of December 5) as to why the future state-run health exchanges under the Affordable Care Act might not be ideal from the perspective of a smaller business. Please excuse me, but I need to reply only in very general terms because I do not know the nature of your product or service, it's market position, profitability, your company's desirability as a great place to work, etc.
There is a growing trend among enterprises of various sizes to educate employees in terms of looking at salary/wages as only one component of the benefits that accrues to them by working for a business. Merit raises and promotions are difficult and oftentimes, non-existent, and periodic furloughs are needed to save variable expenses of production.
In this environment, companies like to remind employees that they enjoy the security of a benefits package consisting of important insurance coverage (i.e. medical, dental, life, disability, etc.), and maybe a savings or profit-sharing plan (401(k), ESOP, etc.), vacation time, sick time, community service time, bereavement time, special service awards, and so forth. Together, these become part of a much larger concept - larger than thinking only of one's pay -- known as the "total compensation package."
Employees have an affinity for their employer, a sense of stability (tenuous as it may be at times like now), and identity that comes from the workplace. Suppose business owners eliminate their own group's health coverage, wellness initiatives, and the annual opportunities at open enrollment to promote other employer-sponsored value-added programs, and then transition them to the exchanges? Might these actions impact - in some way - the competitive advantage and success the business had enjoyed up until then in gaining access to the best labor it could afford?
When the economy improves, which it will at some point, might a firm that relishes the chance to drop health or wellness coverage for the exchanges become less attractive to the local labor market compared to firms that haven't bailed and still provide the "core" coverages that are so dear to employees? And another thought, what if the exchanges provide a poorer level of benefits compared to the firm's existing health and welfare plan?
By making employees leave the plan - if the law allows this to occur across-the-board -- these employees who move may be worse off than before, even though they are still "insured." Will a loyal employee remain as loyal, and will morale remain as high? To be determined.....
Report this Comment
Posted by: GMiller | December 5, 2011 2:26 PM
Ken, just confirmed what will happen to many more employees than anyone in DC has anticipated. Employers will in large numbers gladly shift their employees to the Exchanges. I agree totally that employers should be unencumbered from the long held system of employer sponsored group health benefits. The Exchanges just might be the best option. However, somebody will pay for the all the expenses associated with adding tens of millions of uninsured and subsidized premiums for families making upwards of $94K annually. As they like to say, there is no free lunch. The original penalties envisioned for the individual mandate was substantially higher than the one that passed. We're luring millions and millions into a system that can't possibly pay for itself over time. Hence, the four year pay in before the real benefits start to get a mythical surplus in the first 10 years. It has already imploded with the failure of the Class Act revenue scheme and lack of will to impose $500 Million in cuts to Medicare provider reimbursement. This bill will evaporate under its own debt weight faster than anything before it. But I don't certainly blame a small employer for making the decision to dump their employees into the Exchange. It was a set up from the get go.
Report this Comment
Posted by: Linda Riddell | December 5, 2011 2:19 PM
Six of the top 10 items increase taxpayer expenses or increase how much a person pays for his health insurance. If these items were listed on a menu along side their costs, I wonder what would be popular. I am a big supporter of health reform, but it may not survive the budget process, even if it does survive the U.S. Supreme Court.
Report this Comment
Posted by: Daniel P | December 5, 2011 2:15 PM
@KEW - Maybe because we, as in those of use paying taxes, will now have to cover expenses for your employees. The cost explosion coming is just the practical reason that this is "horrible." The other is the constitutionality of it. If the supremes say this is OK, what will now be the limit to what the government will be able to force people to do?
Report this Comment
Posted by: KEW | December 5, 2011 1:35 PM
Can somebody please explain to me what I'm missing? To me, the fact that in 2014, my small business can, with a clear conscience, transfer our 29 full time and 2 part time employees to a state-run exchange for their health insurance is the best. news. ever. I can free up $300/employee/month in health insurance expense and not worry about open enrollment, wellness programs and employees not being able to afford the care they need. Why is this so horrible?
Report this Comment
Add Your Comments...