Keeping Employers In the Game?
Although the majority of Oregonians now receive health coverage through an employer, the overall trend is of an erosion of employer-sponsored insurance. Is this bad news or good? Should employers be in the business of offering health insurance to their employees, or should employed people get insurance some other way?
Oregon's Senator Ron Wyden has proposed a universal coverage plan that eliminates the employer role in the provision and payment of employee health coverage. Senator Wyden's Healthy Americans Act would disconnect insurance from employment, allowing health coverage to stay with people as they moved between jobs. All employers would participate in the system by making payments to support premium costs for people up to 400% of the federal poverty level ($70,400/year for a family of three).
Other national figures (including several presidential hopefuls) are proposing reforms that maintain employer participation. States proposing reform are also mostly maintaining an employer role. Hawaii, which has had a universal health care access law in place since 1974, requires employer participation. The Hawaii law requires all employers to offer health care coverage to employees working 20 hours or more a week (except seasonal employees). The employer must pay for at least 50% of the premium and the employee’s contribution can not be more than 1.5% of his salary. To make such a law apply to all employers, Hawaii has an exemption from the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), something that no other state has received. Other states have made attempts to require employers to participate in health coverage. For example, Massachusetts requires employer participation in employee health coverage, but the penalty for non-participation is low ($295 per worker per year). California's recently defeated proposal included employer participation requirements. The city of San Francisco has implemented an employer participation mandate.
Our current health insurance system relies heavily on employers to offer subsidized insurance to their employees. Employer-sponsored health insurance has some advantages to employees and their employers. For example, employers can pay for some or all of their employees' premiums. Those contributions are a tax-deductible expense for the employer.
Should people who get insurance through their job be able to use pre-tax dollars to pay for premiums, while the self-employed or others purchasing in the individual market cannot get this tax advantage? Should we make tax advantages available to non-employed and self-employed people? What else should change, if anything? If employers should be encouraged to keep providing insurance, what strategies do you think are the most important to maintain employer contributions to health care?
For more information on how Oregonians get their health insurance, see the report by the Office for Oregon Health Policy & Research on Health Insurance Coverage by clicking here for the pdf. For information on the national decline in employer sponsored coverage between 2001 and 2005, see this 2007 report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
Recent Comments