[civilized]

If the problem is around different insurers paying for different brands, then yes, I think the solution is for the consumer to have the choice of MCO rather than it being tied to the employer. But I'm sure this would create other problems and snarl the system with even more complexity.

That's ignoring the fundamental cosmic absurdity of this entire system, with its pretense to be some kind of competitive private market with the usual benefits of such. When in reality, insurers are just a bunch of hogs at the trough that you're shuffled between as you change employers. The private market does not seem to create any sort of incentive for efficiency or a better consumer experience.

[lotsofpulp]

The hogs at the trough have net profit margins of 5% or less, and pay out 85%+ of premiums they collect to healthcare providers. You can remove MCOs from the equation, and their function will still have to be done by whoever is paying. For example, the approving/denying is still done in the UK even though they have taxpayer funded healthcare. Or even within the Kaiser health system in the US.

It does make life easier for providers and patients when there is one system that provides quick definitive answers rather than back and forth. On that front, there is much improvement to be made in electronic communications between healthcare providers and MCOs.

On a positive note, this is happening via electronic prescriptions and integrated EMRs. I have seen my kids’ doctor pull up covered medications in their system and then quickly sending the electronic prescription to the pharmacy.

> But I'm sure this would create other problems and snarl the system with even more complexity.

There is absolutely no reason for employers to be involved in your healthcare. They currently are able to use it as a leash around your neck because paying for MCOs via your employer means you get to purchase with pre tax dollars. Paying yourself means you have to pay with post tax dollars. I am looking at my box 12 code DD total, and for me that is $32k of insurance premiums I was able to pay with pre tax dollars.

More importantly, it gives employees an additional hurdle and fear of changing employers, because what if they have to go through what the person who wrote this article did? Maybe they should not shop around to see if they can sell their labor at a higher price, and just stick to their current employer. Another unnecessary chip for employers to have over employees in the US.

[civilized]

> More importantly, it gives employees an additional hurdle and fear of changing employers, because what if they have to go through what the person who wrote this article did? Maybe they should not shop around to see if they can sell their labor at a higher price, and just stick to their current employer. Another unnecessary chip for employers to have over employees in the US.

This is horrifying to contemplate... do employers just love that chip so much that they see it as worth all the terrible customer experience and inefficiency it causes? Do they lobby to keep it this way?

[lotsofpulp]

Someone must be lobbying for it. I would like to be in the room when the Senate panel discusses things like this.

Let us let businesses pay for MCOs with pre tax dollars. But not individuals, that would be undesirable….why?

Let us let businesses select retirement fund options for employees, and then let employees save $21k to $50k per year of pre tax money if they invest in their employer’s retirement savings options (401k).

Let us only let individuals save $6k pre tax in their own retirement account, without the meddling of employers. Let us go one step further and phase this benefit out if one employee works for an employer with 401k and the other does not.

As of 2020, let us let employees pay for student loans with pre tax money if they pay through their employer. But not students who pay themselves.

Let us pay for public transit with pre tax money, but only if via employer.

And so on and so forth. You see TONS of laws that explicitly give an upper hand to employees of well funded employers, effectively giving a competitive disadvantage to employees of poorer employers (small businesses, immigrants) and simultaneously incentivizing those who do work for well funded employers to not seek other options, such as starting their own small business.

[civilized]

Yeah, the retirement one is very telling, isn't it. Probably a strategic advantage for large companies that already have the bureaucratic infrastructure to administer complex benefits.

And if they want to grift their employees by giving them bad fund options because of some kickback the fund provider gives them, they can.

[beerandt]

The people that are most concerned about insurance before quitting are generally the ones that have expensive, known health issues.

Which self insured employers pay for directly.

So the barriers to switching aren't necessarily good for the employer either, because the more reliant someone is on their health insurance, the more they cost the company, and the less likely they are to ever leave.