What’s an election year without some policy implementation delays? The Obama administration handed one out to medium-sized businesses with the move to impose a one-year delay to implement the employer mandate. Again. Although most large businesses offer insurance, some medium-sized companies with between 50 and 99 employees have complained over the requirement to provide healthcare coverage to the level outlined under Obamacare. Some have said that it will kill jobs and hit profitability and mean they won’t be able to afford to employ as many people full-time.
The rule change spelled out in a Treasury Department statement calls for large employers to phase in the coverage of full-time workers from 70 percent in 2015 to 95 percent in 2016 and beyond. Those employers in this category who don’t comply face penalties, according to the Treasury Department statement.
The delay will make Democrats feel less vulnerable to attack on the issue in the run-up to the midterm elections coming up in November.
With the Rise of AI, What IP Disputes in Healthcare Are Likely to Emerge?
Munck Wilson Mandala Partner Greg Howison shared his perspective on some of the legal ramifications around AI, IP, connected devices and the data they generate, in response to emailed questions.
The news got a lot of attention. A handful of media outlets discussed the pros and cons of the Obamacare delay:
“…the employer mandate is not an especially important policy lever in the Affordable Care Act. The vast majority of large employers – somewhere around 95 percent – already offer health insurance. They did so before the Affordable Care Act ever contemplated requiring them to do so because, for one reason or another, they thought it was a good investment and way to compensate their workers.”
A Personalized Approach to Medication Nonadherence
At the Abarca Forward conference earlier this year, George Van Antwerp, managing director at Deloitte, discussed how social determinants of health and a personalized member experience can improve medication adherence and health outcomes.
“We should simply repeal the employer mandate. It’s a huge drag on hiring, because the mandate increases the cost of hiring someone (because on top of wages, you now have to pay for his costly, government-approved insurance plan). The House of Representatives has already proposed a bill to repeal the provision, and it would be quite easy for the Senate to do so as well.”
“Like the individual mandate, the employer decree is central to ObamaCare’s claim of universal coverage, but employers said the new labor costs—and the onerous reporting and tax-enforcement rules—would damage job creation and the economy.”
“They are getting tremendous complaints from small business that they can’t do this. It will destroy their business, and that’s why it’s a delay. It’s a political delay,” Charles Krauthammer said. “I think in the end they are going to decide they’re going to have to cancel it because there is no way it will not increase joblessness on top of the 2 million who will be leaving on their own.”
“Unlike the employer mandate, the individual mandate is directly tied to the requirement that insurers cover everyone with pre-existing conditions. If the administration delayed the requirement for most Americans to buy health coverage, it would decrease the pressure for healthy people to sign up, and the health plans could end up with too many sick people. That would make the coverage more expensive for everyone who’s left.”
[Photo from stock.xchng user malko]
