Sears, Darden Restaurants announce defined-contribution programs for employee health benefits
Two companies take step toward defining new model in employee health care benefits
October 29, 2012 at 08:00 PM
7 minute read
Most large employers are sticking with the status quo in employee health care benefits until the full ramifications of the new health care reform law are known, but two major companies are taking a big step toward defining a new model.
Sears Holding Corp. and Darden Restaurants Inc. announced in late September that they are implementing defined-contribution programs for employee health benefits, giving employees a fixed sum of money and allowing them to choose their medical coverage and insurer from a private online marketplace. The move is similar to companies that replaced pension plans with 401(k) contributions, allowing employees to choose their own investments.
Darden Restaurants, owner of chains including Olive Garden and Red Lobster, will let its approximately 45,000 full-time employees choose their health coverage for 2013, and Sears will make the program available to about 90,000 full-time employees, according to the Wall Street Journal. Neither company would disclose the size of its contribution to the employees' health insurance purchase.
The employees of the two corporations will choose among plans designed by Aon Hewitt, one of several companies currently developing private health care exchanges, which are similar in concept to the public online exchanges under development by the states under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
According to Steven Clark, senior counsel for Aon Hewitt, their exchange currently targets large employers with more than 5,000 insured lives who typically have been self-insured. Employees will be able to select among plans from nine carriers, each offering varying levels of coverage and cost.
“The employer no longer has the obligation to design its own plan,” Clark says. “If they are willing to give that up, they give employees access to a greater number of carriers. By having a choice of carriers, we bring competition into the mix, and hopefully that will contribute to keeping prices down.” Clark says self- insured employers also benefit by transferring the risk from themselves to the insurance company.
Initially, the private exchanges will offer group health insurance, but they are expected to evolve to offer individual coverage once the mandates of the PPACA take effect in 2014.
“A goal of a lot of our clients is to get out of the self-insured business and into a defined-contribution approach,” Clark says. “The long-term goal may be individual coverage. There may be a transition where initially the exchange provides group coverage, but down the road, after 2014, it may shift to an individual coverage model. The employer will provide a dollar amount, and the employee will have access to individual plans on the exchange. If you are going to move to a defined-contribution approach, this is the first step to doing that.”
However, transitioning the private exchanges from offering group coverage to individual coverage will require a change in the regulations governing the PPACA's employer mandate. Under current rules, starting in 2014 an employer who gave employees a subsidy to buy individual coverage would be subject to a $2,000 per employee penalty. Changing that to allow defined-contribution plans only makes sense, Clark argues.
“It seems that the law was intended for employers to subsidize coverage,” he says. “We hope the rules will change in the future so as long as the employer contributes an amount so the employee can buy coverage that is affordable and provides the minimum benefit, the employer could avoid the penalty.”
Most large employers are sticking with the status quo in employee health care benefits until the full ramifications of the new health care reform law are known, but two major companies are taking a big step toward defining a new model.
The employees of the two corporations will choose among plans designed by Aon Hewitt, one of several companies currently developing private health care exchanges, which are similar in concept to the public online exchanges under development by the states under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
According to Steven Clark, senior counsel for Aon Hewitt, their exchange currently targets large employers with more than 5,000 insured lives who typically have been self-insured. Employees will be able to select among plans from nine carriers, each offering varying levels of coverage and cost.
“The employer no longer has the obligation to design its own plan,” Clark says. “If they are willing to give that up, they give employees access to a greater number of carriers. By having a choice of carriers, we bring competition into the mix, and hopefully that will contribute to keeping prices down.” Clark says self- insured employers also benefit by transferring the risk from themselves to the insurance company.
Initially, the private exchanges will offer group health insurance, but they are expected to evolve to offer individual coverage once the mandates of the PPACA take effect in 2014.
“A goal of a lot of our clients is to get out of the self-insured business and into a defined-contribution approach,” Clark says. “The long-term goal may be individual coverage. There may be a transition where initially the exchange provides group coverage, but down the road, after 2014, it may shift to an individual coverage model. The employer will provide a dollar amount, and the employee will have access to individual plans on the exchange. If you are going to move to a defined-contribution approach, this is the first step to doing that.”
However, transitioning the private exchanges from offering group coverage to individual coverage will require a change in the regulations governing the PPACA's employer mandate. Under current rules, starting in 2014 an employer who gave employees a subsidy to buy individual coverage would be subject to a $2,000 per employee penalty. Changing that to allow defined-contribution plans only makes sense, Clark argues.
“It seems that the law was intended for employers to subsidize coverage,” he says. “We hope the rules will change in the future so as long as the employer contributes an amount so the employee can buy coverage that is affordable and provides the minimum benefit, the employer could avoid the penalty.”
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
© 2024 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 AllVisa CLO-Turned-Vice Chair Seeing Payoff From Expanded Role
Recent CEO Shooting Tragedy a Reminder for Corporate Risk Assessment and Incident Response Plans
7 minute readAlbertsons Gives Up on $25B Merger, Sues Kroger Seeking 'Billions of Dollars'
Trending Stories
- 1Like a Life Raft: Ben Brafman Reflects on Nearly 50 Years as a Defense Attorney
- 2HSF Partner Removed Over ‘Deeply Offensive’ Tweets
- 3Another Latham Partner Heads to Sidley in London
- 4In 'Kousisis,' the DOJ Once Again Pushes the Limits of Federal Fraud Prosecutions
- 5How Kirkland Has 'Reinvented a Meaningful Aspect' of Funds Work
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