A significant fraction of our candidates demand a discussion of health benefits before accepting offers. They compare plans and copays with other jobs. They care about the level of benefits we provide, meaning that this pitch involves us (the employer) selling our candidates on the value of reduced health insurance benefits.
As I understand it, the full package of HSA benefits only kicks in if you're also on a high-deductible insurance plan. Meaning, to pitch a candidate on the idea of us funding an HSA, we also need to sell them on high-deductible insurance.
I have no doubt that most employees are better served by high-deductible + HSA. But that might not be a winning pitch for a candidate with a family; even if it's rationally the right move for those employees, it's still a complicated proposal.
Meanwhile, I'm very much not in love with compensation packages tailored for 23-year-olds.
Where am I going wrong here?
The problem is that the game is rigged until health insurance can be completely decoupled from employment.
EDIT: Keep in mind, I can still want excellent healthcare but not be a wasteful healthcare consumer. I needed a non-controlled substance prescription that was very expensive in the US, even with insurance, but its offered inexpensively over the counter in Canada, Mexico, etc. Guess where I bought it from.
This is the biggest problem in the US.
I don't think that's how it would work. The company would include the extra cash payment in the employee-compensation category of its profit-and-loss statements. The extra cash payment would likewise be tax-deductible for the company (that is unless your salary is over $1 million).
It takes some time to work up the spreadsheet, but they'll come to find that the high deductible+ HSA (with matching) is better for them in the long term then the PPO with lower per pay-period premiums.
But yes, if they are inclined to delve that deeply pre-employment, then it probably makes sense to have a conversation with them about why you chose what you provide as a benefit over the other options that were available.
The high cost of health care and the high follow-on cost of insurance make this a very real thing. I know I take it seriously and often get eye-rolls form across the table when I ask about it pre-acceptance.
Health insurance isn't a "one plan fits all" benefit. For many employees, a high deductible + HSA plan is the best value. For others, an expensive plan with low copays and deductible is the best value.
Simply offering an HSA option doesn't seem fraught, but creating a benefits package that pushes employees (through incentives or whatever) to HSAs is a bit more worrying.
My concern is mostly about companies tailoring their benefits plans to further lock in a culture of 23 year old male developers.
It's really great coverage, and good for people with, or planning on starting families. Despite what people rumor mill about, Google has plenty of non-23 employees and employees with children. Especially in farther-away offices like Seattle/Kirkland.
In fact, the Google healthplan is not fully competitive in Kirkland - the MSFT health plan has 0 monthly contributions and 0 co-pay. For those microsofters with children, copays add up really quick.
Also this article is spam bait of the worst kind.
This service needs to exist for everybody.
Source: http://www.quora.com/Medicine-and-Healthcare/What-are-some-o...
Big enough that a certain big data company might want to make a business out of it? I mean, if they're already using them and know how it operates...
The difference in premium vs out of pocket expenses makes sense in aggregate. It wouldn't think it would be convincing to an individual who has the slightest current health complication, who has a family history of complications, or who has a family or is thinking about starting a family.
Of course if you allow employees to choose which health plan (and thus which premium) is appropriate for them, that is different.
The most basic insurance plan available caps out of pocket expenses at $6350, which while is still significant but likely won't cause medical bankruptcy. Even the most "premium" plan only caps out of pocket expenses at ~$3000, yet would cost $3000-5000 more in premiums.
A premium plan would provide a nice sense of security, but might be the best option to minimize expenses for an employee.
are those caps per year ? per incident ?
even if they are per year, that doesn't make sense. you're asking me to believe that people have been paying $3000 more to cap their risk for the year at a number $3000 lower. It can't be that simple, or else people have been leaving money on the table.
It's only vaguely disguised as a how to, even if it is something many HN'ers are dealing with.
