NASE Submits Testimony Addressing the Issue of Affordable Health Coverage


NASE Submits Testimony Addressing the Issue of Affordable Health Coverage

Testimony of Robert Hughes, President
The National Association for the Self-Employed

House Committee on Small Business
"Health Insurer Consolidation – The Impact on Small Business"
October 25, 2007

As the representative of over 250,000 micro-businesses across the country, the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE) is committed to addressing the issue of affordable health coverage, which is the number one concern of our members and all small businesses in our nation. I am here to tell you that rising health care costs are significantly hurting micro-business and impairing their ability to grow, compete and succeed. In addition, the high cost of health coverage has serious personal consequences on business owners and employees. Often times our members will sacrifice saving for retirement, putting money aside for their children’s education, and addressing other personal needs to redirect funds to health care costs in order to stay insured. Of course, the worst result of mounting premiums is dropping coverage altogether which puts their business, their family and themselves at risk should they face a medical crisis.

The number of Americans living without health coverage rose in 2006 to 47 million, an increase of almost 16 percent over the previous year. In a 2005 survey, the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE) found that a majority of micro-business owners, those businesses with ten or less employees, do not have for themselves nor offer a health insurance plan to their employees. The smallest companies are most impacted, with only 14% of companies that grossed less than $50,000 annually having health insurance compared to 70% among those grossing more than $500,000 yearly. Most alarming is the rate at which premiums for micro-businesses have been increasing. In a similar health survey conducted by the NASE in 2002, micro-businesses indicated the median premium increase from the year before was a little over 11%. However, in 2005 micro-business owners were experiencing a median premium increase of over 17%, a substantial escalation.

Premium costs are the single most important factor that determines whether a business owner will insure himself and provide coverage for his/her employees. Most importantly, if a micro-business owner cannot afford insurance for himself and family, he/she will not likely provide health benefits to employees. The issue of choice or lack thereof in carrier options plays a role in terms of its affect on price. Thus, the key question here today is if increasing consolidation amongst health insurers are playing a role in premium increases.

First, I would like to highlight that the self-employed and micro-businesses purchase health insurance in two markets: the small group market and the individual market. The definition of a small group is determined by each state, though most define it as one with 50 or fewer employees. Firms in this size range looking to offer access to health insurance for their employees will look to the small group market for insurance options. However, of those currently insured, the majority of self-employed and micro-businesses have purchased individual health coverage. While micro-businesses surveyed by the NASE indicate that they believe it is an employer’s responsibility to assist their employees with health coverage, the high cost to both the business and the employee in terms of cost sharing are the most significant barriers impeding business owners from providing employees with coverage. Micro-businesses may assist their employees with their health care costs by setting up a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA), contributing to an HSA or increasing their take home salary to help employees pay for individual insurance but a large percentage are not setting up an employer-based small group health plan.

The health insurance options and number of carriers differ in the individual and small group market. Most states have a suitable number of insurance carriers with an array of coverage options within the individual market. The small group market is much more restrictive in terms of competition and availability. The NASE believes that minimization of insurance carriers due to consolidation compounded with the concern of high risk in this small group segment and excessive state regulation leaves small businesses with minimal options to set up a small group health plan and is a factor contributing to high premiums in insurance markets.

A 2005 GAO report highlighted that the median market share of the largest carrier in the small group market was 43%, up 10% from 2002. The five largest carriers in the small group market, when combined represented three-quarters or more of the market in 26 of the 34 states that participated in the GAO study compared to only 19 of 34 states in 2002. Blue Cross and Blue Shield is by far the giant in this sector, growing to 44% market share in all participating states. To support the GAO findings, we see similar depictions of lack of competition from a 2006 AMA study on the nation’s health insurance markets which found that 95 percent of markets had a single insurer with a market share of 30 percent or greater and 56% of markets had a single insurer with a market share of 50 percent or greater.

From the data we see a notable dominance of a few carriers in the small group market. Thus, the next question that begs an answer is how this lack of competition is affecting premiums. Any micro-business owner will tell you that competition plays a central role in improving quality, spurring innovation and keeping prices down. Thus, the NASE feels the lack of competition may be a vital element in high premium costs in the small group sector. James C. Robinson, PhD, a professor of health economics at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, in an article for Health Affairs revealed that between 2000 and 2003 health plans raised premiums consistently above the rate of growth in costs. For investors in private insurance companies, returns were tremendous and Robinson states, “the non-profit Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans enjoyed financial results equal to or better than those of their for-profit counterparts.” (Health Affairs, Volume 23, Number 6) According to previous AMA testimony, in 2005 premiums for employmentbased insurance policies increased by 9.2 percent —outpacing overall inflation by a full 5.7 percent. Cumulatively, the premium increases during the last six years have exceeded 87 percent, which is more than three times the overall increase in medical inflation (28 percent) and more than five times the increase in overall inflation (17 percent) during the same period. (AMA Testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee, 2006) Hence, we see that premiums have consistently increased in the face of minimal competition.

However, The NASE feels that the state regulatory climate plays an even more critical role in keeping costs high and impairing competition. State mandates on coverage in all markets increase the cost of basic health coverage between from a little less than 20% to more than 50% depending on the state. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance has identified that there are currently over 1,600 mandates in our health care system. While mandates can make health insurance more comprehensive, they also make it more expensive by requiring insurers to pay for certain health services that consumers previously funded out of their own pockets. It is likely that insurers will push that added mandate cost into premium rates. The cost that excessive mandates add to health coverage can mean the difference between a micro-business owner just purchasing coverage for himself or also providing it to his employees. Additionally, the regulatory and statutory conditions in states have created barriers that make it difficult for new carriers and new products to expand into markets. Without new carriers or competing insurance products, prices will remain high when one insurance carrier dominates a market.

Micro-business owners have long been a proponent of market-based solutions for dealing with our health care system. However, “competition without competitors will not deliver the desired incentives for health care improvement.” (Health Affairs, Volume 23, Number 6) We must increase competition in the small group market to encourage lower premium costs which will spur micro-businesses to seek to expand coverage to their employees. We must address excessive state mandates and restrictive climates hurting innovation. Additionally the NASE urges Congress to address the disparities in the individual market since the majority of self-employed business owners are purchasing individual health insurance. Currently there are over 20 million non employer firms, in which the owner must seek health coverage on the individual market. Thus, addressing the inequitable tax treatment of health insurance for those purchasing coverage on their own will also be a key step forward to increasing access to health coverage.

The self-employed and micro-business community continue to be the backbone of our nation’s economy, therefore the NASE urges you to take immediate action to alleviate the massive health cost burden laid at their feet in order to ensure their survival and that of our nation’s economy.


Courtesy of