Assess the Future Costs of the New Healthcare Law Now, In-House Counsel Told
InsideCounsel/Fisher & Phillips National Labor Law Symposium attendees warned that maintaining "grandfathered" status will be difficult.
September 15, 2010 at 08:00 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The healthcare reform program signed into law six months ago by President Obama will have the broadest impact on the nation of any legislation since the Social Security Act, so employers should start now to prepare for the changes affecting them.
That was the message Fisher & Philips Partner Sheldon Blumling delivered to an audience of in-house counsel at the InsideCounsel/Fisher & Phillips National Labor Law Symposium Thursday in Chicago.
The complexity of the law makes that a significant challenge, he added, and many provisions remain to be clarified through regulation.
“We already have 1,000 pages of regulatory guidance,” he said, “and by the time it's all said and done, there will be 10,000 pages of them.”
One hundred pages of the issued regulations deal with what is required for employers to keep a “grandfathered plan,” which is not subject to many of the requirements that will be imposed on new healthcare plans. For example, for new plans an employer cannot offer better benefits for executives or highly compensated employees than are available to other employees.
While many companies want to retain the ability to offer different levels of benefits to different groups, “Employers will see that it is very difficult to maintain a grandfathered plan,” he said. For example, in order to be grandfathered, an employer can't change insurance carriers, and premiums for employees can't rise more than 5 percent.
Starting in 2014, companies with more than 50 full time employees will face the “play or pay” provisions of the law- either provide adequate and affordable healthcare coverage, or pay a penalty of $2,000 per employee, excluding the first 30 employees.
“It's staggering to see how much it will cost, particularly if you currently don't have coverage for employees or have coverage but don't subsidize it,” Blumling said. “If you haven't crunched the numbers, I encourage you to do so. You have a decision to make.”
The healthcare reform program signed into law six months ago by President Obama will have the broadest impact on the nation of any legislation since the Social Security Act, so employers should start now to prepare for the changes affecting them.
That was the message Fisher & Philips Partner Sheldon Blumling delivered to an audience of in-house counsel at the InsideCounsel/
The complexity of the law makes that a significant challenge, he added, and many provisions remain to be clarified through regulation.
“We already have 1,000 pages of regulatory guidance,” he said, “and by the time it's all said and done, there will be 10,000 pages of them.”
One hundred pages of the issued regulations deal with what is required for employers to keep a “grandfathered plan,” which is not subject to many of the requirements that will be imposed on new healthcare plans. For example, for new plans an employer cannot offer better benefits for executives or highly compensated employees than are available to other employees.
While many companies want to retain the ability to offer different levels of benefits to different groups, “Employers will see that it is very difficult to maintain a grandfathered plan,” he said. For example, in order to be grandfathered, an employer can't change insurance carriers, and premiums for employees can't rise more than 5 percent.
Starting in 2014, companies with more than 50 full time employees will face the “play or pay” provisions of the law- either provide adequate and affordable healthcare coverage, or pay a penalty of $2,000 per employee, excluding the first 30 employees.
“It's staggering to see how much it will cost, particularly if you currently don't have coverage for employees or have coverage but don't subsidize it,” Blumling said. “If you haven't crunched the numbers, I encourage you to do so. You have a decision to make.”
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 AllBest Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Trending Stories
- 1The Importance of Contractual Language in Analyzing Post-Closing Earnout Disputes
- 2People in the News—Jan. 8, 2025—Stevens & Lee, Ogletree Deakins
- 3How I Made Partner: 'Avoid Getting Stuck in a Moment,' Says Federico Cuadra Del Carmen of Baker McKenzie
- 4Legal Departments Dinged for Acquiescing to Rate Hikes That 'Defy Gravity'
- 5Spalding Jurors Return $12M Verdict Against State Farm Insurance Client
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