IBJNews

Survey: Reform threatens retail, hospitality

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

When the lion’s share of the health care reform provisions take effect in 2014, the industries expecting to take the biggest hits are retail and hospitality.

Nearly half of employers in the sectors expect the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act to boost their health plan costs more than 3 percent that year, according to a survey released last week by Mercer, the New York-based benefits consultant.

The concerns among retailers, restaurants and hotels are far different than in other industries, such as manufacturing, financial services, transportation and government, where only one-third to one-quarter of companies expect to see cost bumps of 3 percent or more due to health care reform.

“With health benefit cost already rising at twice the rate of general inflation, an additional increase of 3 percent or more will be very tough for employers to absorb,” Sharon Cunninghis, leader of Mercer’s health and benefits business, said in a prepared statement.

The 2010 health reform law, championed by President Obama, in 2014 will require all employers with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance to their employees, or pay a penalty. Also, all Americans must obtain health coverage or pay a tax.

For companies with 100 or fewer workers, the law will also create government-run insurance exchanges through which workers can obtain subsidies to help purchase private health insurance. Those exchanges will somewhat standardize the benefits of insurance in order to make comparison shopping easier.

One further complication for retail and hospitality businesses is their large number of part-time employees. The health reform law requires employers to provide health benefits to any employee working 30 hours a week—meaning many more of those workers must be on the company health plan.

But according to Mercer’s survey, two-thirds of those employers are considering changes to their plans that would ensure more of their part-timers don’t qualify for health benefits.

Since retailers and hospitality companies also have lots of low-wage workers, they expected some of their workers to receive coverage under the health reform law’s expansion of Medicaid coverage to all adults making up to 133 percent of the federal poverty limit.

But after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state governments could opt out of this expansion—and several have vowed to do so—the companies’ low-wage workers could be left in the cold. Providing health coverage to them is potentially more expensive than coverage for higher-wage employees, because the health reform law limits the percentage of workers’ income that can be contributed toward health benefits.

“Extending coverage to more employees will be a significant new expense for these employers,” said Tracy Watts, Mercer’s U.S. health care reform leader, “especially because other provisions regulate how much an employer can require employees to contribute to the cost and how good the coverage must be.”

Overall, 37 percent of employers surveyed by Mercer expect the 2014 health law changes to drive up costs more than 3 percent. One in five employers expects costs to rise 5 percent or more.

About 27 percent of employers expect costs to rise 2 percent or less, and 10 percent expect costs to rise not at all in 2014. The rest of employers said they do not know how much the new requirements will raise costs.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Obamacare
    3% increase....really? As it is said "What planet are you from" to the survey takers. That is pure krap. Expect 15% minimum increases plus the wealth tax, unrealized income tax, being one of the few that pay income tax tax, etc etc etc.

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. RKW's comments read like a modern "Chicken Little". As a Raintree resident for many years, "Yes, I'm ready for this." Matter of fact, I welcome The Farm because it's a development that compliments our town, brings new and desirable shopping & dining closer (specialty grocer, upscale shops, micro brew pub, etc), offers upscale condos for empty nesters who want to stay in Zionsville, is being planned and constructed by local, well-reputed firms and, of course, provides desirable non property tax benefits. We all knew the Pittman's were going to develop their property sooner than later. That one of the Pittman's will continue to live on the property helps assure The Farm will be everything promised. This also sets a standard for other developers as to the quality of future developments - which should keep an ugly Walmart at bay for decades. As we've no meglomaniac mayor, I seriously doubt Zionsville would ever aspire to over-priced statues or subsidized retail rents. And we already have a very nice public theater, the Zionsville Performing Arts Center, that meets our cultural needs quite nicely.

  2. Do we add (or subtract) these from the bounty we recieve from RTWFL, Daylight Savings Time, corporate tax giveaways, and the crack job IEDC is doing?? Or is Mike going to blame these on Mitch?

  3. Who makes Tater Tots? They would be a good sponsor, because $3 Million for the alleged "Greatest Spectacle In Racing" is taters. Tiny, tiny taters. But at least they are making up something of the losses accumulated over the years in this dying sport. Buttock in seat is certainly not doing it, nor eyeball on TV, as evidenced by the lack of both.

  4. We loved lakehouse and think the Arbor Village would be a great location. It is less than 2 miles from over 1000 rooftops in the 225,000 to over 1 million range. Many people could use the great fishers trail system to bike or walk there. Just an idea Scotty -- but maybe something closer to 3 Wiseman would good. The only microbrew in area is Ram (boring)

  5. True, it's an ESPN production, but ESPN is just another name for ABC Sports, or what used to be ABC Sports since ABC Sports no longer exists as a name. ESPN=ABC Sports= ESPN. ESPN is, according to Forbes "the world's most valuable media property" worth $40 billion. Despite that, they fired 400 people this week.

ADVERTISEMENT