Today’s piece in the Wall Street Journal by Governor Mitch Daniels should be a must-read for Congressional Leaders and even the President, all of whom claim that they want to hear any good ideas that are out there about how to improve our health care system. The Governor describes how Indiana and state workers are benefiting from having the option of health savings accounts:  




When I was elected governor of Indiana five years ago, I asked that a consumer-directed health insurance option, or Health Savings Account (HSA), be added to the conventional plans then available to state employees. I thought this additional choice might work well for at least a few of my co-workers, and in the first year some 4% of us signed up for it….



What we, and independent health-care experts at Mercer Consulting, have found is that individually owned and directed health-care coverage has a startlingly positive effect on costs for both employees and the state. What follows is a summary of our experience:


State employees enrolled in the consumer-driven plan will save more than $8 million in 2010 compared to their coworkers in the old-fashioned preferred provider organization (PPO) alternative. In the second straight year in which we’ve been forced to skip salary increases, workers switching to the HSA are adding thousands of dollars to their take-home pay. (Even if an employee had health issues and incurred the maximum out-of-pocket expenses, he would still be hundreds of dollars ahead.) HSA customers seem highly satisfied; only 3% have opted to switch back to the PPO.


The state is saving, too. In a time of severe budgetary stress, Indiana will save at least $20 million in 2010 because of our high HSA enrollment. Mercer calculates the state’s total costs are being reduced by 11% solely due to the HSA option.


Most important, we are seeing significant changes in behavior, and consequently lower total costs. In 2009, for example, state workers with the HSA visited emergency rooms and physicians 67% less frequently than co-workers with traditional health care. They were much more likely to use generic drugs than those enrolled in the conventional plan, resulting in an average lower cost per prescription of $18. They were admitted to hospitals less than half as frequently as their colleagues. Differences in health status between the groups account for part of this disparity, but consumer decision-making is, we’ve found, also a major factor.


Overall, participants in our new plan ran up only $65 in cost for every $100 incurred by their associates under the old coverage. Are HSA participants denying themselves needed care in order to save money? The answer, as far as the state of Indiana and Mercer Consulting can find, is no.  There is no evidence HSA members are any less likely to defer needed care or common-sense preventive measures such as routine physicals or mammograms.


It turns out that, when someone is spending his own money alone for routine expenses, he is far more likely to ask the questions he would ask if purchasing any other good or service: “Is there a generic version of that drug?” “Didn’t I take that same test just recently?” “Where can I get the colonoscopy at the best price?”


For what it is worth, I once had a health savings account myself, and found myself doing exactly what Governor Daniels describes: I asked the doctor how much things like different tests costs before they performed them. I sought out generic drugs. This didn’t change the quality of care I received, or whether I went to the doctor for a yearly check up (which, I think, was actually covered under my plan) or when I was sick. It just encouraged me to make sensible choices. And, as a result, by the time I left that job, I had around $3,000 in my health savings account.


Today, I have health insurance through my husband and know that often times I enter the doctor with a “sure, why not” attitude. If it were my own money, I’d think differently.