By Josie Martinez
Senior Partner and Legal Counsel
EBS Capstone, A UBA Partner Firm
As the implications of health care reform become more apparent, large employers are increasingly grappling with coverage options to avoid the penalties. Over the past few months, there has been considerably more attention paid to the problems faced by the staffing industry and similar employers as these temporary and variable hour employees are generally common law employees of the organization, and ultimately such companies are on the hook as it relates to offering health coverage.
One option some employers are looking at is the offer of a “no minimum value plan” – this is a group health plan that provides medical care, but may not satisfy the 60% minimum value threshold. Granted, if an employer offers such a plan that is not minimum value, an employee may apply for a tax credit at the exchange and this could trigger a $3,000 penalty ($3,000 for any full-time employee that receives a tax credit), but this penalty would be lower than the penalty associated with not offering any health plan at all (the $2,000 penalty/every full-time employee).
These types of plans are starting to make their way into the market for just this reason – as a viable alternative to staffing companies and/or other companies that operate in a similar fashion. At the end of the day, it allows employers to satisfy the coverage requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and avoid the hefty penalty associated with that option. So, it minimizes the risk financially. Also, if employees accept the “skinny” plan, they will not be penalized with the individual tax penalty currently in effect for not having coverage – in some respects, a win-win for both parties.
Some employers are using a modified version of this strategy. These employers offer employees two options: (1) a skinny plan, and (2) a richer option with a premium contribution cost that just barely meets the 9.5% wage threshold, which few low income employees are expected to take. This strategy enables employees to opt for the skinny plan that they can afford, while the offer of the richer option immunizes the employer from the play or pay penalties.
A third strategy is to simply offer the richer option and allow it to be unaffordable. For example, the plan could be offered on a fully contributory (i.e., employee pays all) or nearly fully contributory basis. This strategy avoids the “no offer” penalty, although the employer is still liable for the “unaffordable” penalty, but only with respect to those employees granted a premium tax credit.
Keep in mind, these strategies are aggressive. There are those who argue the skinny plans will not provide sufficient coverage to satisfy the “minimum essential” coverage criteria, but under the current regulations, it seems a possibility. Eventually, these plans may not pass muster, but for now there is nothing definitive against going this route so it is something to consider.
Employers interested in finding out what healthcare strategies other companies are using should complete the UBA Benefit Opinion Survey. Respondents will receive a complimentary copy of the full national report of survey findings which will provide valuable data on what employers are actually doing (vs. just talking about).