IBJNews

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.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By the way, the right to work law is intended to prevent forced union membership, not as a way to keep workers in bondage as you make it sound, Italiano. If union leadership would spend all of their funding on the workers, who they are supposed to be representing, instead of trying to buy political favor and living lavish lifestyles as a result of the forced membership, this law would never had been necessary.

  2. Unions once served a noble purpose before greed and apathy took over. Now most unions are just as bad or even worse than the ills they sought to correct. I don't believe I have seen a positive comment posted by you. If you don't like the way things are done here, why do you live here? It would seem a more liberal environment like New York or California would suit you better?

  3. just to clear it up... Straight No Chaser is an a capella group that formed at IU. They've toured nationally typically doing a capella arangements of everything from Old Songbook Standards to current hits on the radio.

  4. This surprises you? Mayor Marine pulled the same crap whenhe levered the assets of the water co up by half a billion $$$ then he created his GRAFTER PROGRAM called REBUILDINDY. That program did not do anything for the Ratepayors Water Infrastructure Assets except encumber them and FORCE invitable higher water and sewer rates on Ratepayors to cover debt coverage on the dough he stole FROM THE PUBLIC TRUST. The guy is morally bankrupt to the average taxpayer and Ratepayor.

  5. There is no developer on the planet that isn't aware of what their subcontractors are doing (or not doing). They hire construction superintendents. They have architects and engineers on site to observe construction progress. If your subcontractor wasn't doing their job, you fire them and find someone who will. If people wonder why more condos aren't being built, developers like Kosene & Kosene are the reason. I am glad the residents were on the winning end after a long battle.

ADVERTISEMENT