MCGOWAN: Reform's grandfathering option requires close look

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hugh M. McGowanIn recent weeks, as we’ve sat down with clients to discuss their firms’ health benefits, many of them have asked, “What do we have to do to be grandfathered?”

In other words, what must they do for their health benefit plans to qualify as “grandfathered” plans under health care reform? Most of them had been relieved when they first learned the reform law included a provision allowing employers to keep existing plans.

However, as we outline for our clients the requirements for grandfathered plans, the questions usually take a different tone. The client is no longer focused on, “What do we have to do?” as much as, “Should we even pursue grandfathered status?”

Given what we’ve learned over the last few months, that’s exactly the question they should be asking.

The concept of grandfathering emerged early in the health care reform discussions when Americans were assured that, if they have a health plan they like, they may keep it after reform. When they first heard this, most employers assumed it would be in their best interests—and employees’ best interests—to pursue grandfathered status.

But as the reform law took shape, it added requirements to grandfathered plans that made many employers reconsider whether they could attain or hold onto grandfathered status—requirements that pivoted in part on notions such as “material changes” to benefits and “significant increases” in employee costs.

What’s driving this concern? In helping our clients with this choice, we’ve discovered four key factors.


Perhaps the biggest concern with health care reform has been uncertainty. The meaning of terms such as “material,” “significant” and “routine” will continue to take shape as rules and regulations are finalized and interpreted. As recently as Nov. 15, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a substantive change in the regulations. Furthermore, we face the real possibility that the law will change based on shifting political tides.

Finally, many employees might opt out of employer-sponsored plans, affecting insurance pools and rates, and many carriers likely will drop health benefit programs altogether (a number of carriers already exited the sector in the wake of reform).


As health care costs rise, the employer has to find ways to make those increases affordable, a task typically achieved through some combination of measures such as increasing employees’ costs, altering benefits, and changing carriers. If an employer chooses to pursue grandfathered status, however, it will be limited in its ability to make such changes. For example, while the law allows “routine” changes, if cost increases to employees exceed a prescribed range, the plan loses its grandfathered status.

Required changes

Technically, it’s true that employers can keep the same health benefit plans they had before reform was enacted, but that doesn’t mean they can keep the same plan design. Even grandfathered plans must meet certain reform laws standards. For example, grandfathered plans cannot include lifetime coverage limits, and they must offer coverage to plan members’ children up to age 26. If they don’t already meet those standards, they’ll have to change or lose grandfathered status.


Ostensibly, in order to qualify for grandfathered status, a plan needs to have been in effect on the day the law was enacted, March 23, 2010. But regulations detailing how the plan would be implemented weren’t issued until June 14 (and, as mentioned above, substantial changes were made just this month). If you happened to renew your plan in the interim, and you failed to select a plan that complies with the regulations, your plan will not qualify for grandfathering.

“Transition relief” is available, but it requires essentially revoking the new plan and reverting to the old plan or putting a newer one in place.

While some employers might see benefits in maintaining a grandfathered status, the concept is not as automatically attractive as it originally seemed. So, what should an employer do?

First, honestly assess the pros and cons of seeking grandfathered status. Review your benefits package in a vacuum, considering the decisions you would make if health care reform were not a part of the picture. Then compare those choices to the post-reform world and, with the help of your accountant, business consultants, broker and other trusted advisers, assess your options and make the choice that makes the most sense for your business.

Your business will be around a lot longer than the conversation about grandfathered benefit plans.•

McGowan is president of McGowan Insurance Group. Views expressed here are the writer’s.


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. Gay marriage is coming, whether or not these bigots and zealots like it or not. We must work to ensure future generations remember the likes of Greg Zoeller like they do the racists of our past...in shame.

  2. Perhaps a diagram of all the network connections of all politicians to their supporters and those who are elite/wealthy and how they have voted on bills that may have benefited their supporters. The truth may hurt, but there are no non-disclosures in government.

  3. I'm sure these lawyers were having problems coming up with any non-religious reason to ban same-sex marriage. I've asked proponents of this ban the question many times and the only answers I have received were religious reasons. Quite often the reason had to do with marriage to a pet or marriage between a group even though those have nothing at all to do with this. I'm looking forward to less discrimination in our state soon!

  4. They never let go of the "make babies" argument. It fails instantaneously because a considerable percentage of heterosexual marriages don't produce any children either. Although if someone wants to pass a law that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot be legally married (and therefore not utilize all legal, financial, and tax benefits that come with it) until they have produced a biological child, that would be fun to see as a spectator. "All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher answered. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not... we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism." The civil contract called marriage does NOTHING to regulate babymaking, whether purposefully or accidental. These conservatives really need to understand that sex education and access to birth control do far more to regulate babymaking in this country. Moreover, last I checked, same-sex couples can make babies in a variety of ways, and none of them are by accident. Same-sex couples often foster and adopt the children produced by the many accidental pregnancies from mixed-sex couples who have failed at self-regulating their babymaking capabilities.

  5. Every parent I know with kids from 6 -12 has 98.3 on its car radio all the time!! Even when my daughter isn't in the car I sometimes forget to change stations. Not everybody wants to pay for satellite radio. This will be a huge disappointment to my 9 year old. And to me - there's so many songs on the radio that I don't want her listening to.