Reports of the Death of Employer Based Health Insurance Greatly Exaggerated
Much has been written about how employers should respond to the Affordable Care Act and indeed, advice of competent counsel is clearly warranted in light of the complexity of the law and the need to analyze one's individual circumstances and objectives. But it simply cannot be said that Obamacare has killed employer based health insurance.
January 29, 2015 at 01:48 PM
4 minute read
Perhaps a recently published study in Health Affairs will quell the relatively strident prognosticators who predicted that the Affordable Care Act will undermine, that is, kill, employer based health insurance as we know it. (See F. Blavin, A. Shartzer, S. Long and J. Holohan, An Early Look At Changes In Employer-Sponsored Insurance Under the Affordable Care Act, Health Affairs, January 2015.) An article in Forbes magazine from September 2013, titled “Obamacare Is Killing Traditional Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance” is but one of many examples of dire predictions about the demise of employer sponsored health insurance.
So far, those predictions appear to be wrong. But it's complicated.
The decline of employer based health insurance was well underway prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act. National rates of employee based health insurance have been declining “nearly every year since 2000.” Blavin, et al., at 171. Between 2000 and 2010, the portion of employees having employer sponsored health insurance at small companies (less than 10 employees) declined from 43% to 33%. At large companies (more than 1,000 employees), the proportion of covered employees declined from 87% to 82% for the same period. Id., at 171-172.
The Affordable Care Act created a range of competing incentives for employers and employees that affect an employer's decision to continue providing coverage for its employees. The establishment of health insurance exchanges and the availability of payment subsidies for consumers incent employers to drop coverage, particularly those having a large population of low-wage earners who could qualify for the subsidies. Medicaid expansion, which can provide coverage for low wage earners, also creates an incentive for employers to drop coverage.
On the other hand, the Affordable Care Act continues the preferential tax treatment of employer sponsored health insurance, whereby payments made on behalf of employees for their health insurance are not taxed as employee income. Thus, the tax treatment of these payments provides an incentive for employers to offer health insurance. Additionally, the Act imposes penalties on employers with more than 50 employees if the employer does not offer adequate and affordable coverage for these employees.
The Act also encourages small employers to provide health insurance coverage. It provides for employer tax credits for employers with 25 or fewer FTEs, and employers with 50 or fewer employers can benefit from the introduction of the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). Blavin et al. also suggest that the Act's individual mandate creates a demand on behalf of employees for employer sponsored insurance.
In light of the mix of incentives and disincentives, what's an employer to do?
Apparently, they haven't done too much. The Health Affairs study, based upon survey data for the period June 2013 through September 2014, found essentially no change in the rate at which employers offer health insurance to their employees between June 2013 and September 2014. Id., at 174. Similarly, the authors found no change in the rate at which employees accept their employers' offers for health insurance for the same period. Id.
Indeed, simulation models that preceded this study are somewhat consistent with these results. The Congressional Budget Office predicted that the Affordable Care Act would result in a decline (6 million fewer people) in employee sponsored health insurance, but RAND predicted that the Act would result in an increase (8 million more people). Other simulations resulted in estimates between the CBO and RAND estimates. Id., at 172. Perhaps a fair take-away from these simulations is to conclude that the Act may lead to neither a decrease nor increase in employer based health insurance. And the Massachusetts experience should also be noted, which shares key incentives with the Affordable Care Act and resulted in an increase in employee sponsored health insurance (from 73% of employers offering health insurance in 2007 to 79% in 2008). Id.
There can be no doubt that the long term effects of the Affordable Care Act are difficult to predict. However, evidence to-date suggests that the mix of incentives for individuals and employers may have, if anything, stemmed the 15 year erosion of employer sponsored health insurance.
Much has been written about how employers should respond to the Affordable Care Act and indeed, advice of competent counsel is clearly warranted in light of the complexity of the law and the need to analyze one's individual circumstances and objectives. But it simply cannot be said that Obamacare has killed employer based health insurance. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the range of incentives currently in place for employees and employers may have secured its survival.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw firms need to consider a range of options for achieving their aspirations
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Fearless Forecaster’s Employment Law Predictions for 2025
- 2Judicial Conference Declines Democratic Request to Refer Justice Thomas to DOJ
- 3People in the News—Jan. 2, 2025—Eastburn and Gray, Klehr Harrison
- 4Deal Watch: Latham, Paul Weiss, Debevoise Land on Year-End Big Deals. Plus, Mixed Messages for 2025 M&A
- 5Bathroom Recording Leads to Lawyer's Disbarment: Disciplinary Roundup
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250