About 1 in 10 firms plans to drop coverage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even as the rising cost of medical benefits has moderated, 11 percent of Indiana employers with 10 or more workers say they will terminate their medical coverage within the next five years, according to the latest survey from the benefits consulting firm Mercer.

The Indiana data from Mercer is not statistically significant because the firm surveyed only 77 employers here. But the result is one of the broadest state-level measures available.

And it shows that even as more details fall into place about the 2010 health reform law, a relatively small but steady group of employers plans to drop coverage. Mercer's survey a year ago showed that 8 percent of Hoosier employers planned to drop coverage after 2014.

The issue of employers dropping health care coverage is being closely watched because it could affect whether President Obama’s health insurance reform law succeeds at reducing the number of the uninsured without spiking federal spending.

The 2010 law creates fines for employers that do not sponsor adequate health benefits for their workers, beginning in 2014. But the law also creates online health insurance exchanges that could provide coverage instead of employers.

Workers with low and moderate incomes can earn subsidies in those exchanges to help them pay for health care coverage. But if too many companies halt their health benefits, it could send more than the estimated 16 million Americans to the exchanges—potentially exploding the projected costs of the program.

Right now, benefits consultants expect that companies with lots of low-wage workers—such as retailers, restaurants and hotels—are the most likely to drop coverage in favor of the public exchanges.

“I don’t think that the majority of professional businesses will use the public exchanges,” said Michael Haffey, senior vice president of marketing at Brown & Brown of Indiana Inc. “But retail, restaurants—absolutely.”

Another option for businesses that want to offload some of the administrative headaches of a health plan is to opt for one of the growing number of private exchanges, such as the Anthem Health Marketplace that will be launched in Indiana on Jan. 1. Nationally, 56 percent of employers said they are likely to use a private exchange for health benefits, according to Mercer’s survey.

Indiana employers paid an average of $10,125 per worker for health benefits this year, up 4.9 percent from the previous year, according to Mercer’s survey.

The growth rate in Indiana was faster than the national average, which was 4.1 percent this year. Spending on health benefits also grew 4.9 percent in Indiana in 2011—when nationwide growth was 6.1 percent.

The national increase in health benefits spending this year was the slowest, by far, since 1997.

Nationally, more employers are following Indiana’s lead in adopting consumer-directed health plans, which combine a personal health savings account or a health reimbursement arrangement with a high-deductible health plan.

In Indiana, 40 percent of employers offered a consumer-directed health plan, up from 38 percent a year ago, according to Mercer’s survey.

Among employees at Hoosier firms, 21 percent are enrolled in a consumer-direct health plan. Nationally, just 16 percent of employees are enrolled in such plans—although that number is rising.

“If we’re not already at the tipping point—and we may be—at this rate of growth it’s coming soon,” said Andrew Rosenberg, leader of health and benefits in Mercer’s Indianapolis office.

Indiana’s spending on health benefits also may have been lower than the national average due to a higher percentage of mid-size firms and a lower percentage of firms with more than 500 employees. Mercer’s survey included 2,809 employers, but none with fewer than 10 workers.



  • Tough to Estimate
    As the article stats, the 77 surveyed is not significant but for some reason leads with the result. The bottom line is if a company provides health insurance now it is for a reason 1)they want to provide this benefit to attract good workers and/or 2) they are providing the benefit because they themselves want good coverage as well as their immediate and extended family which many employ for that reason. I don't see the exidus coming that everyone predicts.
  • Exchanges
    So, if I read this corretly, low wage employers --it is being suggested---will merely use the public exchanges. So , if a hotel chain has 1000 employees ( for sake of illustration these are the full timers, we will leave part time out of it) ---and today they have 250 who take insurance, not unusual in this category ---at a total cost ( to the hotel as employer contributing toward employee coverage )of $1,000,000 they will just assume it is better to terminate their plan and let the exchange handle interested employees? Let's see, that is 1000 -30 employees (970) x $2000 penalty if even one goes to the exchange and receives a subsidy. Or about double their current costs. And, whereas the $1M they contribute today is tax deductible, the near $2M in penalty fees is not. Meanwhile, other types of employers are assumed to merely be interested in the private exchanges ( doubtful) and not interested in the public exchange ( foolish). An employer may have employees in all income brackets. and a current high participation on their group plan. They may consider altering their contribution strategy such that lower income employees can take advantage of the public exchange coverage ---and ---and receive subsidies and credits. Possibly the employer lowers over all costs ,( even with a penalty for those going to the exchange) and the employee has less out of pocket costs. A win -win. And I fail to see how using the private exchange platform removes some of the "administrative hassle" ( in the context of HCR , which the article is within). Employers are stiull responsible to offer Affordable Care,keep track of Eligibility ( and full time calculations) and be in Compliance. Not to say the private exchange model does not bring other advantages to the table , such as consumerism, choice, predictible cost budgeting... HCR is complicated. And much --per specific employer--actuarial analysis must be done to see what strategy is best for each employer. It is misleading to make sweeping judgements about what is "likely" , or to infer universal solutions at this point.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. It is nice and all that the developer grew up here and lives here, but do you think a company that builds and rehabs cottage-style homes has the chops to develop $150 Million of office, retail, and residential? I'm guessing they will quickly be over their skis and begging the city for even more help... This project should occur organically and be developed by those that can handle the size and scope of something like this as several other posters have mentioned.

  2. It amazes me how people with apparently zero knowledge of free markets or capitalism feel the need to read and post on a business journal website. Perhaps the Daily Worker would suit your interests better. It's definitely more sympathetic to your pro government theft views. It's too bad the Star is so awful as I'm sure you would find a much better home there.

  3. In other cities, expensive new construction projects are announced by real estate developers. In Carmel, they are announced by the local mayor. I am so, so glad I don't live in Carmel's taxbase--did you see that Carmel, a small Midwest suburb, has $500 million in debt?? That's unreal! The mayor thinks he's playing with Lego sets and Monopoly money here! Let these projects develop organically without government/taxpayer backing! Also, from a design standpoint, the whole town of Carmel looks comical. Grand, French-style buildings and promenades, sitting next to tire yards. Who do you guys think you are? Just my POV as a recent transplant to Indy.

  4. GeorgeP, you mention "necessities". Where in the announcement did it say anything about basic essentials like groceries? None of the plans and "vision" have basic essentials listed and nothing has been built. Traffic WILL be a nightmare. There is no east/west road capacity. GeorgeP, you also post on www.carmelchatter.com and your posts have repeatedly been proven wrong. You seem to have a fair amount of inside knowledge. Do you work on the third floor of Carmel City Hal?

  5. I don't know about the commuter buses...but it's a huge joke to see these IndyGo buses with just one or two passengers. Absolutely a disgusting waste of TAXPAYER money. Get some cojones and stop funding them. These (all of them) council members work for you. FIRE THEM!