Employers slow to act on health reform

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though employers expect the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down at least some of the 2010 health reform law later this month, few are actually doing any contingency planning.

Forty-five percent of employers surveyed by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans said they are taking a “wait and see” approach to the fate of health care reform. Not only are they waiting for the Supreme Court to hand down its decision, but more than half taking this approach say they’re eyeing the outcome of the November elections, too.

Fewer than 30 percent of employers have had detailed discussions or drawn up scenario-based plans, according to the survey. And 26 percent of employers say they have had general discussions about how changes to the law could affect their health benefits plans.

“This is the calm before the storm, if you will,” said John Gause, president of Indianapolis-based Apex Benefits Group Inc.

Gause expects most employers to wait until after the court ruling and after the outcome of the November presidential election before solidifying any changes to their health benefits strategies. Most of the provisions of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act take effect in 2014.

“Employers are really going to say, ‘OK, it’s here or it’s not here,’ and they’re really going to look at that point,” Gause said of late-2012 and 2013. “And they’re going to look for direction from whoever their advisers are.”

On the whole, employers would like to see the Supreme Court toss the entire law on the scrapheap, according to the foundation’s survey. Fifty-eight percent prefer that outcome, compared with 27 percent that want the full law to stand and 14 percent that want some things to stay and some to go away.

However, employers generally do not expect to get their wish. Two-thirds expect that the Supreme Court will leave the law intact except for the “individual mandate”—a requirement in the law that all Americans except some young adults acquire health insurance.

If the entire law were to be struck down, legislators on Capitol Hill are preparing bills to reinstate some of its most popular provisions. Among the employers surveyed, not one of the provisions received majority support for reinstatement. The closest was the increased tax breaks for wellness programs, which garnered support from 33 percent of employers.

However, employers do think their employees would like to see some of the law’s provisions stand.  Most popular, in the employers’ estimation of their workers’ views, is the law’s requirement that employers cover their workers’ adult children up to age 26. Fifty-eight percent of employers think their workers want to see that rule remain.

And roughly one-third of all employers think their workers also favor the law’s elimination of all pre-existing condition exclusions and forbiddance of co-pays for preventive health care services.

The survey results, released June 5, were based on responses from 1,027 U.S. employers or multi-employer groups. The people responding were administrators of the companies’ health benefits plans.



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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.