Obama hands employers free play on health insurance

July 8, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Obama administration’s decision last week to delay for one year enforcement of penalties against employers that fail to offer affordable health insurance gives employers the chance to cancel their benefits for the year and pocket a boatload of cash.

It’s like a quarterback who takes a snap when a defender was offsides. He can throw the ball deep hoping for a touchdown while being secure that, if he’s intercepted, he’ll get to run the play over again.

That’s how Jim Hamilton, an employer attorney at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, sees it.

“You can essentially get a freebie for 2014,” Hamilton told me, predicting that “some employers are going to stop offering coverage in 2014 just because there’s no financial penalty for doing so.”

The penalties were part of President Obama’s 2010 health reform law, officially known as the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, but better known as Obamacare.

For employers that failed to offer any health insurance, those penalties would have totaled $2,000 per full-time employee, but not counting the first 30 employees. Also, Obamacare introduced a new definition of full time: workers averaging 30 hours per week.

For employers that offered health insurance that was too expensive for employees—costing more than 9.5 percent of their household incomes—the employers would have paid fines of $3,000 for each of their workers who instead bought health insurance in the government-run exchanges that Obamacare will create.

Since these penalties are far lower than the $16,000 average cost of health insurance policies, many pundits—particularly those who dislike Obamacare—have predicted a wave of employers dropping coverage.

But as I pointed out two years ago, such predictions ignored the other elements of employee compensation and the dynamics of competitive employment markets.

Before last week’s announcement, Hamilton expected less than 5 percent of employers to drop coverage in 2014. And he still expects the majority of employers not to drop coverage.

But the delay puts a new option on the table: Drop coverage for one year, see whether employees like buying through the exchanges and, if not, start up coverage again in 2015.

“It does raise something that didn’t exist prior to last week’s notice,” Hamilton said.

He acknowledged that even though there is no financial penalty in 2014, there could be an employee-relations penalty to be paid for dropping coverage. And that’s one that won’t go away easily.

“Dropping health insurance is going to go over like a lead balloon with your employees,” Hamilton said. It’s for this reason, and the fact that the Obamacare penalties will kick in in 2015, that many pundits do not expect the delay on the penalties to have much impact on employers’ actions next year.

But Hamilton said employers will at least give the idea a serious look, especially employers with lots of low-wage workers to whom they currently offer health insurance. Think of companies like Starbucks or McDonald’s.

It will come down to each employer’s cost-benefit calculation—how much money it would save, whether its employees would fare better or worse by getting government subsidies to buy health insurance in the exchanges.

“This could be a windfall for these employers,” Hamilton said. And, “the employees could actually fare better—better coverage at lower cost.”

It just depends on whether employers think the one-time profit boost is worth the risk of angering their employees.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Misleading
    You obviously must be a big fan of Obamacare to be selling this point. That's the only way how to explain your twisted conclusion that a business saving money on NEW forced healthcare fees and expenses (remember these are new expenses imposed upon businesses with no new increase on the revenue side of the equation) translates into a "pocketfull of cash" for businesses. That is nonsense and misleading. You should be ashamed.
    • Realist
      Your points might be valid if this were a post about the overall cost of the Obamacare law. But it isn't. It's a bit of analysis about the decision facing employers for 2014, given the circumstances as they are. Canceling health coverage would give employers pocketful of cash relative to what the companies were scheduled to spend in 2014. This is how companies are looking at it. They don't have the option of undoing the entire law. But in the next few years, you can be sure there will be plenty of attempts to quantify the overall expense--or savings, as the case may be--of Obamacare.
    • Misinterpretation
      I believe the "pocket full of cash" employers will save is from the insurance premiums they won't pay, should they choose to drop coverage. My employer can drop insurance altogether, save more than $2M in premiums they pay currently, and not pay the $2K per FT employee penalty they would have paid before the delay in implementation. Of course, they could have done that any year before 2014 without a monetary penalty, yet they still chose to offer comprehensive medical coverage because there's a competitive and employee morale advantage in doing so. This is the point of the article. Any cost/benefit analysis has to take the intangible costs into the equation, not just the out of pocket cash.
    • Realist?
      The key point of the story is "if the employer is offering insurance now", and then elects to not offer insurance in 2014, leaving the employee to fend for him/herself in the exchanges, then it is a savings to the company for that one year...if you want to refer to it as "avoided cost" then do so, but I don't see the alleged bias or slant for Obamacare in this article at all. It is a pass for the company for one year...if they have the nerve to upset their employees...
    • Really
      Where the rubber meets the road is seeing if employers would give cash instead of the benefit. While there would be additional administrative savings by eliminating insurance, I bet many larger firms find value by using this as leverage over the work force.

    Post a comment to this blog

    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
    1. As I understand it, the idea is to offer police to live in high risk areas in exchange for a housing benefit/subsidy of some kind. This fact means there is a choice for the officer(s) to take the offer and receive the benefit. In terms of mandating living in a community, it is entirely reasonable for employers to mandate public safety officials live in their community. Again, the public safety official has a choice, to live in the area or to take another job.

    2. The free market will seek its own level. If Employers cannot hire a retain good employees in Marion Co they will leave and set up shop in adjacent county. Marion Co already suffers from businesses leaving I would think this would encourage more of the same.

    3. We gotta stop this Senior crime. Perhaps long jail terms for these old boozers is in order. There are times these days (more rather than less) when this state makes me sick.

    4. One option is to redistribute the payroll tax already collected by the State. A greater share could be allocated to the county of the workplace location as opposed to the county of residency. Not a new tax, just re-allocate what is currently collected.

    5. Have to agree with Mal Burgess. The biggest problem is massive family breakdown in these neighborhoods. While there are a lot of similiarities, there is a MASSIVE difference between 46218 and 46219. 46219 is diluted by some stable areas, and that's probably where the officers live. Incentivizing is fine, but don't criticize officers for choosing not to live in these neighbor hoods. They have to have a break from what is arguably one of the highest stress job in the land. And you'll have to give me hard evidence that putting officers there is going to make a significant difference. Solid family units, responsible fathers, siblings with the same fathers, engaged parents, commitment to education, respect for the rule of law and the importance of work/a job. If the families and the schools (and society) will support these, THEN we can make a difference.

    ADVERTISEMENT