[eastbayjake]

The article is based on an odd premise. It sounds like the employees in the study were given an HSA with a deposit equal to their deductible, so they could spend up to that limit without incurring any personal cost. The trick here is that an HSA should encourage you to eliminate unnecessary spending because you get to keep the money you save and bank it for bigger health care costs down the road. I'm 27 and healthy, had a really uninformative annual physical last year where my doctor bilked me for a totally unnecessary EKG, and as a result I skipped my annual physical this year and am banking the savings for a serious illness in the future. The study should actually look at whether people went to the doctor less over the long-run for serious issues -- like not going to the doctor for symptoms diabetes, which left untreated can cause much larger long-term costs to the system -- rather than whether they simply avoided "valuable" medical visits, which in this case as "preventative care" has unclear value.

EDIT: The answer to her question "Why wouldn't this group get the care they wanted, pay for it with the HSA, and just run through the out-of-pocket spending earlier in the year?" is that "the care they wanted" is treatment for a catastrophic illness later in my life rather than dubiously valuable preventative care right now. I'd rather skip a doctor visit for the flu and have more money banked in the future for cancer treatment or a heart attack.

[aggieben]

Yeah, this is close to my reaction as well. Higher deductible plans lead to less spending; confusion among the economically illiterate ensues.

Nothing to see here.