Employers get a delay in providing insurance

[Nodak]

It also puts the deadline conveniently after the 2014 election.

 

[samclem]

It would seem that if employers are being relieved of their obligations for a year that the requirements for individuals to purchase coverage (the "individual mandate") would also be pushed back.

Congress approved a law with many provisions and with implementation dates for those provisions. I'm not quite clear on why the executive branch gets to modify either these provisions or their effective dates. I guess someone would have to sue to get this addressed--and who is going to do that?

 

[explanade]

First it was bad law and now, it's they aren't implementing it fast enough?

 

[donheff]

It would seem that if employers are being relieved of their obligations for a year that the requirements for individuals to purchase coverage (the "individual mandate") would also be pushed back.

i don't see why since the individual mandate doesn't present similar problems.

 

[samclem]

i don't see why since the individual mandate doesn't present similar problems.

We'll know more about that if we see how the exchanges are implemented.

If big employers aren't required to cover their employees until 2015 (or properly document it), presumably those people were counting on that coverage, not buying their own policies. So, now there will (presumably) be yet more pressure on the exchanges (and the govt subsidy program.

This was sold as an integrated package. The parts are falling away (SHOP for small businesses, lack of timely info for consumers to utilize exchanges, now the delay of the entire "large employer" employer mandate). Why not keep it integrated and delay everything until 2015?

Frankly, it looks like amateur hour in DC.

 

[samclem]

First it was bad law and now, it's they aren't implementing it fast enough?

Even a bad law could have been competently implemented.

 

[obgyn65]

There is no "bad" or "good" law. There is "one" law that applies to everyone.

First it was bad law and now, it's they aren't implementing it fast enough?

 

[harley]

There is no "bad" or "good" law. There is "one" law that applies to everyone.

This has to be the most meaningless statement I've ever read. Of course there are good and bad laws (mostly bad). And they never apply to everyone. Almost every law passed excludes members of Congress. Including ACA.

 

[obgyn65]

Quite a subjective statement. Have you ever heard of the concept of the universality of the law ? Laws have been created and refined by societies to protect us from each other. Start there : Universal jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agreed that ACA will not apply to everyone.

This has to be the most meaningless statement I've ever read. Of course there are good and bad laws (mostly bad). And they never apply to everyone. Almost every law passed excludes members of Congress. Including ACA.

 

[donheff]

This has to be the most meaningless statement I've ever read. Of course there are good and bad laws (mostly bad). And they never apply to everyone. Almost every law passed excludes members of Congress. Including ACA.

members of Congress have to purchase health plans from the public exchanges for their states. How does that exclude them?

 

[Mulligan]

It would seem that if employers are being relieved of their obligations for a year that the requirements for individuals to purchase coverage (the "individual mandate") would also be pushed back.

Congress approved a law with many provisions and with implementation dates for those provisions. I'm not quite clear on why the executive branch gets to modify either these provisions or their effective dates. I guess someone would have to sue to get this addressed--and who is going to do that?

I sure wouldn't mind to be relieved one more year of avoiding the financial costs of the mandate. But don't expect me to be the one to sue. I am not going to spend a million dollars in lawyers fees to save $5k in health premiums.

 

[harley]

Quite a subjective statement. Have you ever heard of the concept of the universality of the law ? Laws have been created and refined by societies to protect us from each other. Start there : Universal jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concept is one thing, application is a completely different issue. If you haven't seen examples in this every day you aren't paying attention. Just look at the difference in arrests or sentencing based on race. Or any application of law toward the rich as opposed to the poor. Or police vs. non-police. Or hundreds of other examples. And politicians quite often exempt themselves from the laws that the rest of us have to live with. How often have non-politicians been able to get their names removed from the No-Fly list?

members of Congress have to purchase health plans from the public exchanges for their states. How does that exclude them?

You're right, I'm wrong about this one. I do remember it being an issue at one point, but the Grassley Amendment made sure Congress and staff have to follow the same rules (this time). But I've also read that many people expect a mass wave of resignations before Dec. 31 so that federal workers, both representatives and staffers, will still get to be covered under the old federal insurance plan. I'll be curious to see if that really happens.

None of this really matters, though. I just get pissed off at political maneuvering, which is all putting the requirement off until after the next election is. Sorry for the dangling participle.

 

[youbet]

It also puts the deadline conveniently after the 2014 election.

Yep...... It's all about votes.

 

[MichaelB]

Getting back on topic (and hoping we can stay there) it seems Htown Harry had a point. Not much has changed, employers that would have been fined get another year. The exchanges, which have been the real point of focus for us here, are not affected by the delay.

Members of congress and their staffs are indeed affected by the law, as Donheff pointed out, and this has turned into a real headache for them. The healthcare benefit they receive today is subsidized, and they cannot get a similar subsidy at the exchange. They can get a pay increase to offset that, but because it is not fuly deductible, their after tax income would fall.

 

[obgyn65]

Don't even start me about rich vs poor and racial or ethnic matters. I am an immigrant in the US and I cleaned tables at MCdonalds as a student during the early 90s. And like many I have been treated like crap from US patients because I have a different accent. I do know what unequal treatment feels like, believe me .

Concept is one thing, application is a completely different issue. If you haven't seen examples in this every day you aren't paying attention. Just look at the difference in arrests or sentencing based on race. Or any application of law toward the rich as opposed to the poor. Or police vs. non-police. Or hundreds of other examples. And politicians quite often exempt themselves from the laws that the rest of us have to live with. How often have non-politicians been able to get their names removed from the No-Fly list?
.

 

[youbet]

Members of congress and their staffs are indeed affected by the law, as Donheff pointed out, and this has turned into a real headache for them. The healthcare benefit they receive today is subsidized, and they cannot get a similar subsidy at the exchange. They can get a pay increase to offset that, but because it is not fuly deductible, their after tax income would fall.

I'm not sure of your point Michael. Are you trying to say that Congress-critters will now have smaller bundles of cash hidden in their freezers due to the "headache" of higher health insurance costs?

 

[MichaelB]

Healthcare and the PPACA is an interesting topic, implementation will affect many of us in just a few short months. Lets' try to keep this and other PPACA threads focused on rollout, impact and suggested actions.

 

[M Paquette]

Members of congress and their staffs are indeed affected by the law, as Donheff pointed out, and this has turned into a real headache for them. The healthcare benefit they receive today is subsidized, and they cannot get a similar subsidy at the exchange. They can get a pay increase to offset that, but because it is not fuly deductible, their after tax income would fall.

Awwww... So they're in the same boat as those of us who have to buy our own insurance, with no employer support or other subsidy? Oh, the horror of it all.

I feel so very, very sad for them.

Perhaps we could mandate that the Modified Adjusted Gross Income for all Congresscritters must be less than four times the poverty rate? Then they could enjoy subsidies via the state insurance exchanges.

 

[donheff]

Getting back on topic (and hoping we can stay there) it seems Htown Harry had a point. Not much has changed, employers that would have been fined get another year. The exchanges, which have been the real point of focus for us here, are not affected by the delay.

Members of congress and their staffs are indeed affected by the law, as Donheff pointed out, and this has turned into a real headache for them. The healthcare benefit they receive today is subsidized, and they cannot get a similar subsidy at the exchange. They can get a pay increase to offset that, but because it is not fuly deductible, their after tax income would fall.

I knew Congress is required to get insurance through the exchanges but I assumed they would get covered for the average portioned covered under the existing program, about 70%. If they have to pay 100% out of pocket (especially staffers) I think that is a travesty. Most decent employers pay the lion's share of health premiums and the Federal Government should model good employer behavior. Sticking the whole nut on them would amount to a multi-thousand dollar pay cut. Are you certain they don't get most of the cost covered?

 

[MichaelB]

Awwww... So they're in the same boat as those of us who have to buy our own insurance, with no employer support or other subsidy? Oh, the horror of it all.

I feel so very, very sad for them.

As a fellow traveler in that same boat, I know the feeling. But I do feel badly for those that will see their costs increase, even if it is only to remove the effect of inequitable subsidy and distorted policy.

Are you certain they don't get most of the cost covered?

Currently there is no regulatory mechanism to provide a policy through the exchange that is subsidized, with limited or exclusive access, multi-priced, or anything other than single priced and open to all takers. I have read lots of speculation regarding closed, secret back room negotiations and such, but I don't believe most, and suspect it is mostly tin-foil beanie material. This is not the only group that will have to pay more as our health care system corrects, and it might give them greater insight into how to fix this. To answer your question, at this moment, there is no exception or alternative that I am aware of.

Edit to add: The one way around this I can think of is for the Treasury to allow employers to contribute to policies acquired on the exchange, and continue to allow that contribution to be fully deductible. Under this, however, any employer would be able to do the same.

 

[ERhoosier]

That doesn't look very onerous. One person should be able to implement it in a few days. Certainly, nowhere near as complicated to construct and adhere to as HIPAA regulations, electronic records, and managing the ACA at point of service.

Absolutely agree. In this age of IT, these seem simpler reporting issues than other existing employment reg's (e.g. Soc Sec withhold, Medicare tax, retirement plans, etc.). IMHO- This was NOT valid reason the large employer HI mandate was delayed.

 

[Htown Harry]

In this age of IT, these seem simpler reporting issues than other existing employment reg's (e.g. Soc Sec withhold, Medicare tax, retirement plans, etc.). IMHO- This was NOT valid reason the large employer HI mandate was delayed.

Are you thinking of all types of businesses with 50+ employee, or just the Megacorps?

The loudest protests were coming from employers with a significant number of part-time employees, e.g. the members of the National Retail Federation.

They were objecting to two issues in particular, both requiring new IT tools for the business to meet PPACA's reporting and payroll administration requirements.

One was the definition of "number of full-time employees". The full-time definition in the PPACA is 30 hours or more, a figure that isn't used elsewhere in law or regulation. Adding to that complexity, the proposed regulations require that part-time employees be converted to FTE's for measurement against the 50 employee threshold. Given that part-timers inherently work hours that fluctuate from week to week, the formula for determining whether a business employed 50+ was going to be complicated.

The other issue relates to the mandate for 50+ employers to offer coverage to those employees that exceed the full-time threshold of 30 hours per week. Treasury (the IRS) was attempting to develop a method of tracking hours on average, to recognize eligible employees without the expense of enrolling and dis-enrolling employees into coverage as they gain or lose eligibility. A proposed “look-back” method would allow employers to average hours over a set period (not to exceed 12 months) in exchange for an equal or greater period of stable coverage without regard to eligibility for coverage.

The regs that specify these formulas aren't final, so the bulk of the IT work for employers to calculate and track such figures likely hasn't started yet.

Will it be simple to complete the calculation software once the regs are complete? Maybe for the traditional Megacorp, but not necessarily for the owner of a few franchises in the food court over at the mall.

 

[Htown Harry]

...it seems Htown Harry had a point...

This happens only about once every thousand posts. Thanks for noticing.

 

[ERhoosier]

.....The regs that specify these formulas aren't final, so the bulk of the IT work for employers to calculate and track such figures likely hasn't started yet. ...

BINGO! It's the Feds delaying the final reg's that caused this. (I'll not speculate on whether reasons were political or merely bureaucratic incompetence over past 3+yrs.) Having been involved in payroll & billing for business of ~70 professionals for a decade, I have more than passing knowledge here. It was NOT a Megacorp. I vividly recall the hassles of tracking eligibility for both 'traditional' (pre-ACA) HI eligibility & retirement plan qualifications as these folks' w@rk efforts (hrs, OT,pay, etc) varied significantly over the typical yr around the diff qualification thresholds. PITA to be sure, but it was doable. HOWEVER- you are absolutely correct that businesses need to know what the gov't rules are in order to comply. NO company can hope to comply with reg's which ain't written yet

 

[Htown Harry]

I'm glad to hear that your comments have the perspective of someone who has seen other laws roll through the HR office, ERhoosier.

BINGO! It's the Feds delaying the final reg's that caused this. (I'll not speculate on whether reasons were political or merely bureaucratic incompetence over past 3+yrs.)

There is a third possibility - that it is truly challenging to translate into regulation a complicated law that will apply to most every U.S. business with employees. Especially a law facing myriad legal and political attacks.

This "inside baseball" account of the decision doesn't discount that politics or bureaucracy are factors in the delay, but neither does it support the idea that those were the only factors.
Obamacare: How business got its surprise win - Joanne Kenen and Paige Winfield Cunningham - POLITICO.com

The White House has held many meetings with business groups — sometimes about the health law, sometimes more general. Business lobbyists returned to the health law rules in both settings, time and again. They spent time with high-level officials, including Nancy-Ann DeParle, Gene Sperling, Alan Krueger, Melody Barnes and Valerie Jarrett, some of whom have since left the White House.

“I can’t tell you how many times we met with them,” said Neil Trautwein, vice president of the National Retail Federation, recounting his frequent conversations with White House and Treasury officials. “I’ve got to give them credit for reaching out to us and working to understand our concerns, and I think eventually, not because of any special thing we did, they came to the view that this was not going to be ready for prime time,” Trautwein added.

Several trade groups had fly-ins so Washington officials could hear from business owners across the country. The National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation, the National Council of Chain Restaurants and chambers of commerce were among those that took part, said Stephen Caldeira, president of the International Franchise Association.

Small Business Administrator Karen Mills was particularly receptive, Caldeira said. “The relationship with Karen Mills, from our perspective, was one of the very bright lights of the Obama administration.”

A senior administration official gave a parallel account: The White House heard the concerns about how businesses would have to report their insurance coverage, how data would be collected and verified and how each cost factor would be calculated.
​