I'm a little dubious.<p>A significant fraction of our candidates demand a discussion of health benefits before accepting offers. They compare plans and copays with other jobs. They care about the level of benefits we provide, meaning that this pitch involves us (the employer) selling our candidates on the value of reduced health insurance benefits.<p>As I understand it, the full package of HSA benefits only kicks in if you're also on a high-deductible insurance plan. Meaning, to pitch a candidate on the idea of us funding an HSA, we also need to sell them on high-deductible insurance.<p>I have no doubt that most employees are better served by high-deductible + HSA. But that might not be a winning pitch for a candidate with a family; even if it's rationally the right move for those employees, it's still a complicated proposal.<p>Meanwhile, I'm very much not in love with compensation packages tailored for 23-year-olds.<p>Where am I going wrong here?
"Want to discourage people who aren't healthy and 21 years old from joining your small business? Pick 'budget' health insurance!"<p>The difference in premium vs out of pocket expenses makes sense <i>in aggregate</i>. It wouldn't think it would be convincing to an individual who has the slightest current health complication, who has a family history of complications, or who has a family or is thinking about starting a family.<p>Of course if you allow employees to choose which health plan (and thus which premium) is appropriate for them, that is different.
In case anyone is wondering, Google uses Blueshield of CA to process their insurance claims but internally pay with their own funds. Google ultimately has the final say on how claims will be paid (although they rarely deviate from Blueshield's plan configurations). A rare hybrid approach...