State Health Plan responds to university faculty

Dr. Bruce McKinney, a faculty member at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, grew frustrated when he could not get his questions about changes to the State Health Plan answered last year. So we posted his questions on the blog.

The State Health Plan has now responded with a testy letter. As McKinney says, although Lacey Barnes from the SHP spoke to UNCW faculty she did not address these specific questions. And McKinney was having no luck getting follow up questions answered. So we all appreciate the response.

There are two critical points in the UNCW faculty letter: 1) the real savings will come not from weight loss and smoking cessation, but from kicking people into a higher cost-sharing plan; and 2) there is not a shred of evidence that the comprehensive wellness initiative will work.

In the words of the SHP:

The Plan worked with our contracted actuarial firm to evaiuate the cost-effectiveness of the Comprehensive Wellness Initiative. The analysis included costs for members who use tobacco products and estimates of savings based on the movement from the 80/20 to the 70/30 benefit.

This is important because it has nothing to do with wellness; instead, it’s an administrative trick. In the past if state employees did not take affirmative action to change enrollment in the State Health Plan workers were enrolled in the standard 80/20 plan. Now if affirmative action is not taken then workers are enrolled automatically into the higher cost-sharing 70/30 plan. Because the SHP has not widely advertised this fact, there will be plenty of people duped into paying more out-of-pocket. That’s where the the plan will save money.

Here is the other relevant quote:

Although many states and employer groups are introducing new strategies in an effort to address the increasing costs of health care, there is little published research from other sates that we are aware of at this time.

So much for evidence-based policy.