Not many things in life can be truly motivating. Most of us would agree, however, that money is one of them. Who doesn't want to save some money? Believe it or not, managing your diabetes will cost you less.
A report from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists revealed that poorly managed type 2 diabetes costs the U.S. health care system an extra $22.9 billion each year. This is above and beyond the $37 billion per year that is spent just on treating diabetes. Annually, health care costs for a person with diabetes are three times more than those for a person without diabetes.
So what does this mean for you? Complications from diabetes cost almost $10,000 per year. Of this, an estimated $1,600 per year is not covered by insurance and so must be paid out of pocket. Annual health care costs per person for complications of type 2 diabetes include:
Heart attack: $14,150
Chronic kidney disease: $9,002
Congestive heart failure: $7,932
Stroke: $7,806
Coronary heart disease: $6,062
Foot problems: $4,687
Eye damage: $1,785
Do you want to save money? Control your diabetes and you will. Controlling your diabetes means controlling your glucose levels, as well as following up with your health care team. You are in control of both your diabetes and your finances.
© 2007 Johns Hopkins University. All Rights Reserved. This article from Johns Hopkins University is provided as a service by Yahoo. All materials are produced independently by Johns Hopkins University, which is solely responsible for its content.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. health insurance premiums rose 5 percent on average this year and more companies shifted an additional share of the cost to workers, an annual survey of businesses said on Wednesday.
The average premium for a family's health insurance provided by an employer rose to $12,680. Employees paid $3,354 of that cost on average, according to the survey by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.
The 5 percent increase was similar to the previous year's rise and was lower than other annual gains. Still, premiums have more than doubled since 1999 while workers' wages grew 34 percent, researchers said.
Sixty-three percent of employers offered health benefits in 2008, similar to the 2007 rate.
More insured workers, however, paid higher deductibles this year as companies struggled with rising costs and put more of the burden on employees. Eighteen percent had a deductible of at least $1,000, up from 12 percent the previous year.
"Health insurance is steadily becoming less comprehensive," Kaiser President and Chief Executive Drew Altman said.
The growth in high-deductible plans mainly came from small businesses with fewer than 200 employees, the survey said. More than a third of those workers had to pay at least $1,000 out of pocket before their insurance generally kicked in.
New high-deductible plans have been touted as a way to curb a steady rise in health-care costs. They are often labeled "consumer-directed" because patients have more control over spending, but tend to bear more costs with higher deductibles.
The findings were based on polls of more than 2,000 randomly selected companies between January and May 2008. Results were published in the journal Health Affairs.
(Reporting by Lisa Richwine; Editing by Maureen Bavdek)
The economic downturn could be bad news for our bodies, as well as our pockets, suggest specialists.
Britons are cutting back on expensive fruit and vegetables, and gym membership, claims a report by the Blood Pressure Association.
Some say they are drinking more alcohol than before the recent credit crunch.
The association is urging people to have their blood pressure checked for free this week at one of 3,000 locations across the UK.
Sustained high blood pressure, which can be caused by poor diet and lack of exercise, can raise the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
The survey, carried out jointly with Friends Provident, suggest that the costs of a healthy lifestyle will be the first to be jettisoned during a financial squeeze.
One in three of the 2,700 adults surveyed never or rarely eats the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables.
However, 16% of those questioned said they would have to cut back spending on these in the next six months - and 15% said they had already done this.
A fifth said they were having to cut back on gym use this year because of financial pressures.
However, our love for expensive, unhealthy takeaways has yet to be affected, with more than three-quarters of adults regularly buying takeaways or ready meals.
Pavement pounding
Professor Graham Macgregor, the Blood Pressure Association's chairman, said: "It is clear that Britons are under pressure and this could have serious consequences.
"The dual effect on lifestyles of the credit crunch and lack of concern over long term health is putting the nation at risk of a blood pressure ticking time bomb."
A spokesman for the British Heart Foundation said that it was perfectly possible to have a healthy lifestyle - and save money.
She said: "If you are finding the credit crunch means you can no longer afford the gym, take to the pavements.
"Integrating brisk walking into your everyday routine is good for your heart and free - it will also help relieve the extra stress that you may be feeling at this time.
"When out shopping remember that frozen and tinned fruit and vegetables provide the same benefits to your heart health as fresh.
"Giving up smoking and sticking to the recommended levels of alcohol will also help your heart and your pocket."
The Blood Pressure Association has come up with "Know Your Numbers!", a week-long effort to persuade people to have their blood pressure monitored.
Get ready for another hike in copays and deductibles. A survey being released Thursday by the Mercer consulting firm found 59 percent of companies intend to keep down rising health care costs in 2009 by raising workers' deductibles, copays or out-of-pocket spending limits.
On average, health care costs will go up by an estimated 5.7 percent next year for both workers and their employers, the study found. That repeats this year's 5.7 percent hike and a 6.1 percent jump in 2007.
The growth of health care costs has hovered at around 6 percent since 2005, according to Mercer. While that's down from the double-digit growth in previous years, it's still moving at a faster clip than inflation or workers wages.
"It's not something to cheer about, especially since costs are getting passed on to employees," said Blaine Bos, author of the survey.
As published on:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_bi_ge/pricier_health_care
The results were preliminary findings, with about half of the 3,000 large companies surveyed reporting. Preliminary findings for the annual survey have historically been in line with final results.
Between 2003 and 2007, the average deductible for an individual grew from $250 to $400. For a family, it rose from $1,000 to $1,500, according to Mercer.
Deductibles are the amount workers pay for medical care out of pocket. Once workers spend that amount, they begin sharing costs with employers, with the company covering an average of 80 percent.
Health plans are trying to rein in costs by offering choices such as disease management plans and incentives for greater use of prescription drugs, said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade association representing nearly 1,300 insurers.
"But there's certainly still more work to be done," Zirkelbach said.
He said AHIP has proposed a number of policies and measures to further curb costs.
The Mercer survey also found 47 percent of companies are encouraging enrollment in plans with lower premiums and higher deductibles.
Additionally, the survey found 19 percent of employers will start offering a consumer-directed health plan. These are high-deductible plans with employee-controlled spending accounts. They encourage employees to consider costs when by letting them save account money they don't spend for future needs.
Last year, 12 percent of all employers said they were "very likely" to implement such a plan by 2009.
Regardless of how the numbers are calculated -- and there are a multitude of ways to calculate those numbers -- the cost of health insurance is almost sure to delay retirement for many workers. Very few employees will have the means to easily pay for coverage when employer-provided health insurance concludes.
By Dallas Salisbury
Healthcare worries will keep workers on the job.
Many Americans already report waiting until age 65 to retire in order to be covered by Medicare. Others report working beyond that age so their employer-paid health insurance, in combination with Medicare, will cover most of their health expenses.
A recent study by analysts at the Brookings Institution found that every $1,000 of actual or expected out-of-pocket expenses has the effect of delaying retirement.
And as more workers anticipate taking a single-sum distribution from a defined-benefit or defined-contribution retirement plan, experts are forecasting how much of that distribution might need to be devoted just to health expenses during retirement.
In its 2008 estimate , Fidelity Investments said the average 65-year-old couple would need $225,000 to pay costs not covered by Medicare. The Center for Retirement Research released its 2008 average annuity need for healthcare expenses: $205,000.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute recently updated its estimates as well. EBRI, of which I am president and CEO, provides a spectrum of numbers that relate to the health status of the individual or couple -- with targets determined for various models, since an "average" number will be wrong for those who are not average, which, of course is most of us.
For a couple at 65 with median prescription-drug expenditures who seek a 50 percent chance of having enough money, with no employer involvement, the EBRI estimate is $194,000. That rises to $305,000 for a 90-percent chance of having enough money to cover costs.
Were the couple instead to be in the highest 10 percent of drug spenders, they would need $635,000 to achieve a 90-percent chance of having enough money.
Only 55 today and planning for retirement in a decade? A high-drug-use couple would need $1,064,000 by 2018 to have a 90-percent chance of covering expenses.
Were the retired couple to have access to employer-based coverage, the numbers would change -- further underlining why each worker needs to do a careful assessment of their situation in order to know how much they need to accumulate for retirement.
All of these estimates assume that Medicare will continue to be available at the age of 65 and that Medicare benefit levels will not be reduced -- a risky assumption.
As my prior columns have suggested, Medicare is facing long-term funding challenges. In fact, earlier this month in Washington, former CMS Administrator Gail Wilensky, a health adviser to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., advocated upping the age at which individuals can get Medicare to at least 67 and then higher, should the age for full Social Security benefits be upped in the future.
The implications of delaying retirement age on worker savings would be significant.
Moving in the opposite direction, the current proposals of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., include allowing access to Medicare at the age of 55, for a cost. Such a change would likely move actual retirement ages down, instead of up.
McCain proposes the expansion of health-saving accounts to help meet the needs of retiree-health expenses. Recent EBRI estimates show that HSAs could help, but would likely not be sufficient.
Were a 55-year-old couple today to contribute the maximum to an HSA each of the next 10 years, spend nothing from the account and achieve good investment returns, they could accumulate $118,000 by 2018.
And that is the optimum forecast. In reality, most workers with health plans that allow HSAs would likely spend some of the money in the account to pay for current healthcare expenses and the balance would be subject to low rates of returns for a number of years, based upon current HSA arrangements. These factors would lead to lower account balances.
Whether one looks at the proposals of McCain or Obama, the savings needed for health insurance in retirement will increase for most Americans, not decline.
Health insurance is the first-choice employee benefit of workers, and a must for most couples before entering into voluntary retirement. Government-provided health insurance is likely to become less generous in the decades ahead, and much more expensive, particularly for higher-income retirees.
As in Great Britain, supplemental health insurance would likely be part of any system the United States might move to in the future, requiring savings for co-pays to the government program as well as premiums and co-pays for the supplement.
Because of these facts, HR executives will increasingly see changes in worker attitudes towards retirement age, and will also likely see changes in public policy that move likely retirement ages up the age continuum.
As employers continue to expand the availability of one-on-one retirement-planning assistance and/or expanded online tools, workers will better understand the savings they need to maintain their standard-of-living in retirement, including the cost of health insurance -- leading many workers to want to work longer.
Only the lucky minority who have worked a full career for an employer or multi-employer group that provide an adequate defined-benefit annuity, indexed for inflation, or a sufficient defined-contribution plan (think average annual contributions of 20 percent for 35 or 40 years) and fully paid retiree-health insurance, will likely continue to retire ahead of full Social Security and Medicare in the decades ahead, unless they are given no choice.
Monday, September 01, 2008. More than 1.2 million Arizona residents - about 20 percent of the population - were without health insurance in 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau reported Aug. 26.
The Census Bureau says national data showed the number of people lacking health insurance fell by more than 1 million, the first annual decline since 2001. Nationally, it said 45.7 million people - over 15 percent of the population - were without the insurance, down from 47 million in 2006.
