Health Savings Accounts: A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come?

If you thought privatizing Social Security made sense, here’s a health care innovation for you!

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Article created by The Century Foundation.

Last Saturday, in his weekly radio broadcast, President Bush proposed making health savings accounts (HSAs) “more available, more affordable, and more portable.” He is widely expected to call for expanding access to these accounts, which resemble individual retirement accounts for health care, in next week’s State of the Union address.

The predecessors of these accounts, such as medical savings accounts, made very little impact on the health insurance marketplace. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which established the Medicare drug benefit, created HSAs and offered substantial tax incentives for electing to use them. Individuals who join a health insurance plan with a high deductible ($1,000 for a single person and $2,000 for families) may establish an HSA in which contributions (up to a limit) may be deducted from federal taxes and withdrawn tax-free to pay for qualified medical services.

Proponents of HSAs claim that they will lower the numbers of uninsured, persuade employers to retain insurance coverage, empower individuals by giving them a choice in how to spend their health care dollar, and encourage providers to compete on price and quality as a true market for medical services evolves.

Many health care analysts fear that widespread acceptance of HSAs will separate the wealthy and healthy from the sick in insurance pools and drive up premiums and out-of-pocket health costs for the latter. They worry that individuals who face higher out-of-pocket spending, within their HSA or outside it, will be unable to distinguish accurately between care they need and care that they don’t, with bad consequences for health. They also doubt that HSAs will have a major impact on overall health costs or on the number of uninsured.

For instance, because a relatively small percentage of the population incurs most of the national health care costs (about one quarter of Americans account for roughly 80 percent of total spending each year), most of the spending presumably will be above the deductible. Under the current framework, there is also an incentive for the holder of an HSA to time any elective services in a year when the deductible has already been reached, or to spend more on health care of marginal value if he anticipates that the deductible will be reached.

Real evidence on the impact of HSAs is skimpy at best. Only about 8 percent of Americans are enrolled in an existing health plan with a high deductible and only about 2.5 million have health savings accounts or their equivalent. The number of insurers and employers offering such plans is expected to rise substantially in 2006 because Treasury guidelines for their use have been clarified. As Beth Fuchs and Julia James point out in their exceptionally clear and comprehensive survey, “Health Savings Accounts: The Fundamentals” (National Health Policy Forum, April 2005), while insurers and employers are eager to offer HSAs, the demand for them is much less clear. According to a recent survey of working-age adults, two-thirds of respondents preferred employer-chosen plans to health savings accounts.

Whatever their theoretical pros and cons, current interest in HSAs is being driven by employers who are searching for ways to reduce their health care spending. (If current trends persist the cost of health benefits for Fortune 500 companies will be greater than their profits by 2008.) HSAs are the centerpiece of so-called “consumer-directed” or “consumer-driven” care. This is premised on the questionable idea that cost-conscious individual buyers of health care are the key to reining in health care costs. While many of the features of consumer-directed care are unobjectionable, such as encouraging people to adopt healthier lifestyles and improving information on the quality and price of medical care, the potential risks of HSAs to low-income and sicker Americans shouldn’t be overlooked. Their widespread adoption would represent a potentially radical shift away from the basic insurance principle of healthier individuals subsidizing the sick through a common pool of premiums.

The current health care crisis—rapidly increasing U.S. spending on health care that doesn’t result in equal value, unsustainable costs for employers and public payers, and eroding coverage—is real. There are better ways to address it than by relying principally on individual Americans and market dogma to right the ship. These include new strategies for universal coverage and rewarding better performance from health care providers through incentives offered by public purchasers and health care plans.

We will say more about Health Savings Accounts when the specifics of the president’s plan are released. In the meantime, many of the most important recent books, reports, and articles on the subject are set out here, in the hope and expectation that they will be a useful resource for those who are joining the debate.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate