UnitedHealth Workers Get Critical on Care

Fowler even challenged the very label of her plan.

"I don't consider it consumer-directed," she told The Post. "And it's certainly not consumer-friendly."

The Government Accountability Office recently compared the CDHPs and traditional health plans offered to federal employees. For family coverage, monthly premiums averaged $208 under CDHPs compared to $243 under traditional health plans -- a difference of $420 a year. But the difference between annual deductibles and out-of-pocket spending limits sometimes totaled thousands of dollars. In fact, the study showed, some CDHPs featured spending limits of $10,000 before full coverage kicked in.

Consumers Union has warned of serious problems for people facing less than one-third of that payment.

"A consumer with an income in the range of $25,000 to $30,000 will suffer financial hardship if they face out-of-pocket costs as high as $3,000 a year," Gail Shearer, director of health policy analysis for Consumers Union, said when testifying against CDHPs two years ago. "This type of policy appears to be driven largely by the employer's desire to curb health care expenditures ... We believe this type of coverage is misnamed, misguided from a policy perspective, and a dangerous distraction from the health insurance crisis."

Wave of the Future

Still, Shearer now fears, CDHPs look like they are here to stay.

Powerful fans, from President Bush on down, seem to favor CDHPs even more than traditional health insurance. The plans allow consumers to set aside money, tax-free, for their health care needs and -- with their own dollars at stake -- encourage them to shop wisely for those services. Meanwhile, any untapped funds keep on piling up in the bank.

UnitedHealth, a powerful shaper of health care trends, plans to lead by example.

"One of the reasons we at UnitedHealth converted ourselves," Richard says, "is to illustrate how seriously we believe in consumer-driven health care."