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. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

    2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

    3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

    4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

    5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

    ADVERTISEMENT