Yes, I think the HSA plans are the wave of the future, especially for small businesses. I would suggest this plan to anyone who is offered it and can afford the deductable from day 1 (those people with some kind of savings), to cover the broken leg from the skiing accident in January. After that you start banking your money in your HSA account, which is carried over year to year, unlike my FSA account. Easy to bank money when everyone is healthy.
Anyway, question:
Is your HSA through your employer?
If not, what happens if you or a member of your plan is diagnosed with a chronic, life threating condition, and your annual renewal comes around.
Back when I was offered a choice of HSA vs. more traditional health plan I did NOT take the HSA because under it my husband’s healthcare costs would have doubled. HSA’s are a bad choice for anyone with a chronic condition that needs any form of maintenance therapy. Under and HSA we’d always hit our deductible, every year, and would never be able to save money year to year in the HSA, we’d would always deplete it due to his needs. All it would do is shift even more of the cost of his care directly on to us.
Your’s sounds like an extreme case. Of the plan comparisons that I have seen, when you add up the premiums, deductibles, out-of pocket expenses of traditional vs HSA, they are pretty close (maximum for the year). But you’re right, HSA’s are better for the healthy, because the premiums are typically lower, and you can bank your money.
Mine does not have that - you may be thinking of an HRA (or something like that).
My HSA savings can sit for as long as I want, and as an added bonus, once I hit 65 years old, I can use the money for anything I want. So it also acts as an backup/additional retirement fund.
Yes, HSAs are perfect for the healthy, which is why we picked that. The chunk of money going tp pay for the employer plan was a big chunk of our monthly income, and it did very little for us.
Answers -
No - we are completely disconnected from employer provided healthcare. We found the catastrophic policy online and opened the HSA at our local bank on our own.
Dunno. I would assume our renewal goes up, but that’s how it is sometimes. I certainly have no problem paying more for the catastrophic plan if they’re covering ten or hundreds of thousands of bills for me.
One thing that concerns me about the UHC plan as proposed is that I think it’s likely that HSAs are going to go away. We will be grandfathered in, but once the limits on insurance go into place, these catastrophic plans will be priced out of existence. You can’t have an HSA with no catastropic plan, so no more HSA.
Another option gone, and it’s one that requires people to engage with their healthcare costs. That’s the opposite of where we should be heading IMO.
Extreme? No, he has type II diabetes and some urinary and chronic pain issues, mostly. I guess you haven’t looked into the costs of proper treatment for those two. His is not an “extreme” case at all, there are many people with chronic conditions far more expensive than his.
I understand your concern - you’ve found something that works well for you and you don’t want to wind up with less. However, I have not, myself, seen anything that says HSA’s are going away, or that they will be priced out of existence. Could you please point to the portions of the proposed legislation that you think would do away with them?
No, you misunderstand me, I did not mean that your husbands condition is extreme, I did not even know what his condition was, nor is it any of my business.
What I meant was that 50% more for HSA cost vs Standard Plan is extreme. The HSA plan vs Standard plan cost differential for Maximum Annual Out-of-Pocket expense (i.e. cost born by the patient) of the plans I have seen are close to equal. That is the maximum cost paid by the individual for the year, when you add up the premiums+deductible’s+co-pay’s+other out-of-pocket costs are about the same.
The savings to Healthy people come from the lower premiums for HSA’s, meaning they don’t pay the maximum cost per year, and they actually save money in the HSA which is carried over to the next year, and therefore the next year’s cost is less, as long as you don’t use up the money in your HSA.
Some of these stats need to be interpreted with a bit of caution. How many MRI machines or CT scanners we have is entirely dependent on how many we need. Maybe we have enough (though I’m doubting we do here in Canada), but just saying they have more doesn’t mean they’re better off.
Further, the number of angioplasties and coronary bypasses performed could just as likely be a result of fewer being needed here than in the US, so those data alone are not a sufficient measure of who’s better off between our two countries.
And lastly, cancer survival rates and hearth attack survival rates could just as likely be elevated in the US because only the people who can afford to get into the system get treatment and thus get counted in the stats, while here and in Europe everyone gets into the system and gets counted. I’m willing to bet it’s more nuanced than that, but the point is those numbers don’t tell the whole story. UHC works better than private insurance, and way better than the US system as it is now, but it is prone to stagnation if not constantly monitored and improved.
Also, I really need to take exception to the notion that UHC involves some bureaucrat making health care decisions for you. That flat-out doesn’t happen. The only people who make your health care decisions are you and your doctor(s). The system decides what is covered, but generally for us here in Canada that’s everything except elective cosmetic stuff (some of which is covered) and dental. You don’t have to wait for a government official to ok something before it gets done. So disabuse yourselves of that notion if you carry it.
Our system isn’t perfect, but it’s not hell either. We have had waiting list problems, and we can do better in some areas, but like democracy it’s better than the alternative. And I really, really, vehemently disagree with the notion that governments are automatically less efficient and effective than private industry. That’s a thoroughly cynical, pernicious lie that seems largely to be based on US government bloat. I work for the government here, and though there are definitely problems with some things (staffing is way too slow), by and large public servants are the same people as private sector workers. We are professionals who want to do a good job and want to make things run smoothly.
Also, one thing I’m really curious about is how much different our incomes are between here and the US. I know we all vary by province and state, but I’m curious. Say in your state (whoever might read this) you make $60,000 per year. That works out to $2307.69 every 2 weeks (we get paid bi-weekly here). After taxes, pension adjustment and union dues here (federal government) that works out to about $1550-1600. What do your incomes work out to after taxes, pension and health insurance are paid out? I’m really curious to see if we’re really over-paying up here.
That’s the problem - my family will, every year, without fail, use up ALL the HSA contribution we are allowed just on maintenance needs. At least for every HSA policy I’ve ever seen. They may be great for the healthy, but for anyone with a chronic medical problem they can be terrible.
That “maximum $11.6k out of pocket” isn’t reassuring to me, as our annual income these past two years has only been around $20k gross - we would not be able to keep a roof over our heads if 50+% of our gross income had to go to medical costs.
Yes, thats not good. My standard health plan is actually not much better, my total annual premiums are $7,100 (actual cost to me, does not include what my employer pays); our maximum annual out-of-pocket limit for the plan is $7,000 (in-network, out-of-network is like $14,000), which we hit every year due to my wife’s chronic condition. So, we are paying over $14,000 a year in medical. Fortunately for us its only about 13% of my gross, because I know there are others in the company, same exact plan as me, similar situation (chronic health issues, paying maximum out-of-pocket), but who are only making about 50% of what I do.