You’re totally right, and I love those charts. But let’s be clear about what they’re telling us: what we are buying for our employees. It provides no information about how those costs will increase or any “gotcha” features of the plan. While it provides information about a copay and percentage an employee pays and a deductible, I have no clue if plan 1 has negotiated 25% lower prices from the local hospital system vs its competitor. Likely, all the major plans have more or less the same negotiated rates with providers, but that opacity makes it even harder for anyone to drive efficiency.

Kaiser is a very interesting example actually. Because they own both sides of the business (provider AND payer) they have a big incentive to be efficient. They do pretty well! There’s a few issues: 1.) they are still part of a larger market, so they have to pay for doctors, which means they can’t be TOO far below market salaries. Many doctors are paid on both salary and based on how many and what procedures they do i.e. how much revenue they bring to the hospital. Your doctor in many cases is paid on commission. Kaiser doesn’t do this, which some docs like, but others don’t. 2.) they are regionally limited. You can’t get Kaiser in a lot of places in the US. I’m not sure why it hasn’t scaled nationally, I’d really love to know.

Oddly, I’m told by a friend who works there that Kaiser is run internally as two halves, the insurer and the provider, they then negotiate somewhat independently and keep each other accountable.

Anyway, my pet project is something like what you suggest, decoupling insurance for employment. As an employer (and by extension an employee) I pay no taxes on a health plan I buy. I pay with pre-tax $$. As an individual if I buy insurance I pay with post tax $$ unless it makes up a certain percentage of my income and that falls above some threshold and... I lost track it’s too complicated. It shouldn’t be, there should be a way to properly decouple employment and healthcare.