IRS Ruling Seen Kick-Starting Move To Patient-Directed Health Care

June 30, 2002 at 08:00 PM
Share & Print

IRS Ruling Seen Kick-Starting Move To Patient-Directed Health Care
By

Washington

A ruling last week by the Internal Revenue Service is being viewed by some as a major step towards altering the focus of the nations health care system.

"The ruling will kick-start the move towards patient-directed health care," adds Greg Scandlen, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

The issue, according to Scandlen, involves Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs), which are tax-free health care reimbursement accounts established and funded by employers.

In Revenue Ruling 2002-41, the IRS determined that any unused money in these accounts can carry over from year-to-year. In other words, the use-it-or-lose-it rule, which applies to Flexible Spending Accounts funded by employees, does not apply.

Moreover, former employees, including retirees, can continue to draw on the accounts. In addition to paying for out-of-pocket health care expenses, employees can use the funds to purchase individual health insurance.

"These new rules will promote personal ownership and health care savings in a way that will fundamentally change health care in America," says Rep. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a major advocate for individually-directed health care.

"By giving people the ability to control their own health care decisions, Americans will begin to enjoy the benefits of a consumer-driven health care system," DeMint says.

A major employers group agrees.

"The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service took a solid step in the right direction for many employers that may be considering offering new consumer-oriented health plans to their employees," says Paul Dennett, vice president for health policy with the American Benefits Council.

DeMint says the ability to accumulate money in the arrangements will encourage people to become better health care consumers.

"Rather than being controlled by an HMO or by federal bureaucrats, families will soon gain access to the quality care they need at a price they can afford," DeMint says.

Scandlen says the main roadblock preventing many employers from establishing this type of health account was the uncertainty of the IRSs position on how they would be treated.

"Now that the IRS has ruled in favor of patient power, there should be a flood of new enrollments in 2003," Scandlen says.

Dennett says employers are keenly interested in health plans that may help make their employees better consumers and become more actively engaged in keeping their health benefits as affordable as possible.

Especially at a time when employers are facing double-digit increases in health care costs, he says, HRAs offer innovative solutions.

The ability to carry forward unspent amounts for future health care expenses, he says, is a central feature of consumer-directed health plans.

This gives individuals a strong incentive to spend their health dollars prudently today so even greater resources will be available tomorrow for unanticipated health care needs, Dennett says.

DeMint says a typical HRA may include a three-tiered arrangement. The employer might put $2,000 a year into an employees HRA to cover virtually any medical expense, he says.

If that money is used up, the employee would pay the second tier of expenses, up to a stop-gap amount. Anything above that would be picked up by the employer.

However, DeMint says, if the money in the HRA is not exhausted, it will remain in the HRA to be used for any future health expenses.

In other health news, Don Young, president of the Health Insurance Association of America, recently told a Congressional panel that whatever Congress does on optional federal chartering of insurance companies, it should not add to the already significant regulatory burden faced by health insurance companies.

In testimony before a House Financial Services Subcommittee, Young told lawmakers HIAA does not have a position on OFC, but is concerned about current administrative burdens.

"While we have long supported state regulation of health insurance, we remain concerned about a number of aspects of the current regulatory environment," Young says.

"For example," he says, "there is a very real need to streamline the regulation of health insurance and make it more consistent across jurisdictions."

There is a problem, Young says, with a lack of uniformity. He cites the privacy regulations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as an example.

HIPAA does not fully preempt state privacy laws, Young notes, in that it allows states to pass laws more restrictive than the federal governments rules.

This forces health insurers to make difficult determinations on whether state laws are or are not more protective that federal requirements, he says.

"Inconsistent and overlapping federal and state requirements are a growing problem that must be addressed," Young says.

Above all, he adds, policy makers should carefully consider the cost consequences of their actions, since even the most well-intentioned regulations can make it more difficult to provide affordable health insurance.


Reproduced from National Underwriter Life & Health/Financial Services Edition, July 1, 2002. Copyright 2002 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.


NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Related Stories

Resource Center