Smart SpendingSmart Spending

Companies prepare to pass health costs on to workers

Because of Obamacare, many employers are bracing for an influx of participants in their plans who had opted out earlier.

By Money Staff Nov 26, 2013 3:14PM

This post comes from Theo Francis at partner site The Wall Street Journal.

 

The Wall Street Journal on MSN MoneyMany employers are betting that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that all Americans have health insurance starting in 2014 will bring more people into their plans who have previously opted out. That, along with other rising expenses, is prompting companies to raise workers' premium contributions, steer them toward high-deductible plans and charge them more to cover family members.

 

The changes as companies roll out their health plans for 2014 aren't solely the result of the ACA. Employers have been pushing more of the cost of providing health insurance on to their workers for years, and firms that aren't booking much sales growth due to the sluggish economy are under heavy pressure to keep expenses down.

 

Some are dealing with rising expenses by making employees pick up a bigger share of the premiums for coverage of family members. Employees this year are responsible for an average 18 percent of the cost of individual coverage, but 29 percent of the cost of family coverage, according to a survey of employee health plans by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust.

 

"We have seen employers do more cost-shifting, if you will, for an employee to pay a higher portion of the cost of dependent and spouse coverage," said Tracy Watts, U.S. health-care reform leader at Mercer, a benefits consulting unit of  Marsh & McLennan  Cos.

Between 15 percent and 20 percent of eligible workers nationwide tend to skip insurance, benefits consultants say.

 

Towers Watson  & Co., a benefits consulting firm, figures that about half of the usual opt-outs will sign up for next year—meaning an enrollment increase of about 7 percent or 8 percent, and a corresponding increase in costs of about 5 percent.

 

Haverty Furniture, an Atlanta-based retail furniture chain with stores in 17 Southern and Midwestern states, expects health-care costs to rise by about $2 million, or 20 percent, next year.

 

The company expects the bulk of that to come from enrollment increases, and it is raising premiums, deductibles and copayments in response, Chief Financial Officer Dennis Fink said.

 

"We do think our per-capita cost is going up, but the bigger piece is just people who've chosen not to have coverage," he said.

 

A quirk of the Affordable Care Act could make it more appealing for companies to raise rates for family coverage than for individuals, said Vivian Ho, a Rice University health-care economist.

 

Starting in 2015, companies employing 50 or more people must offer affordable health-care coverage to anyone working 30 hours a week or more.

 

But affordability is measured using the cost of individual coverage, capping the cost at 9.5 percent of income, Ms. Ho said.

 

Raising family rates could help companies recoup costs without running afoul of that limit, she said. Starting now, instead of next year, would allow a more gradual change.

 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said that the health-reform law is keeping a lid on health-care costs overall, and makes it easier for employers to offer coverage. "Since the Affordable Care Act became law, health-care costs have been slowing and premiums are increasing by the lowest rates in years," she said.

 

Woman with neck brace © Stockbyte/SuperStockGannett Co., which owns more than 80 newspapers and 23 television stations, expects one factor in its increased health costs to be the addition of more employees to its insurance plans due to the ACA rules, according to a person familiar with the company's projections.

 

To address an overall increase in costs, Gannett has replaced the two plans for families it used to offer its workers with a single high-deductible plan that requires employees to pay the first $3,000 of medical costs each year, according to workers at the Indianapolis Star, one of the company's papers. For those with individual coverage, who make up a little over half of Gannett's insurance pool, the figure is $1,500.

 

The company also scrapped a sliding scale that let lower-income workers pay lower premiums. For some employees, the result was a 60 percent jump in monthly premiums for family coverage, to $575 from about $360.

 

Gannett said more than half of its employees will see premiums fall by 12 percent.

United Parcel Service Inc. made headlines in August when it said that it would bar spouses from its nonunion health plan if they could get coverage at their own jobs. The company said it expected to see an increase in its health-care costs in part from adding employees to its plan who currently opt out.

 

About 6 percent of employers ban coverage for spouses who can get it elsewhere, and another 6 percent impose an explicit surcharge for covering a spouse, according to Mercer.  American Electric Power Co. , for example, began imposing a $50 monthly surcharge this year to cover spouses with access to insurance at their own workplace. AEP said 92 percent of its employees usually sign up for coverage, so it doesn't expect a surge of new enrollment.

 

In another shift this year, companies have become increasingly aggressive about steering employees toward plans in which they pay more of the initial costs for their care in exchange for lower premiums.

 

Trucking and logistics company  Ryder System Inc. has replaced one of its two insurance options with one such high-deductible plan. Ryder is encouraging employees to choose the new option in part by raising the cost of more traditional coverage.

 

These changes are expected to keep Ryder's total premium cost lower even as it keeps the share of employee premiums that it pays steady at about 70 percent, executives said. They accompany earlier decisions to close Ryder's plan to spouses who can get insurance elsewhere.

 

"In some ways, the low-hanging fruit has been plucked," said Boon Ooi, Ryder's vice president of compensation and benefits. In response, he said, "what organizations frequently do is to look at trying to encourage employees to move into the more efficient plan."

 

Health-care cost growth has slowed in recent years, and benefits consultants expect an increase of about 5 percent for 2014, below recent averages. The ACA isn't expected to raise health-care costs significantly for most companies in 2014 either.

 

The employer mandate was postponed until 2015, and other major provisions have already largely kicked in, including a requirement to cover children as old as 26, ending lifetime limits on coverage, and covering preventive care without out-of-pocket charges.

But for industries dependent on hourly workers, including retailers and hospitality companies whose young and low-wage workers more often opt out of coverage, the individual mandate may have an effect.

 

The problem isn't per-person costs—indeed, companies' average costs could fall with an influx of the younger, generally healthier workers who had previously tended to opt out. But adding more enrollees will nonetheless raise a company's total costs.

 

Joann S. Lublin contributed to this article.

 

More from The Wall Street Journal

31Comments
Nov 27, 2013 9:48AM
avatar

On your company's balance sheet, your salary and benefits are a liability and your value add is an asset. Your asset should never be less than your liability.  That is just business 101.

 

When the government regulates that a company must increase their expenditures on your benefits, unless you have been way undervalued for your value add, they are just going to have to take the money out of your salary in the form of contributions to your benefits.

 

In other words, the government is taxing you indirectly through your company.

Nov 27, 2013 12:30AM
avatar
Obamacare costs eveeryone a fortune.  Thinking employers have extra money laying around to buy health insurance for others is complete ignorance.  Prices on products will go up as well.
Nov 27, 2013 12:35AM
avatar
Obamacare = raise prices or reduce hours.  Neither option is good for employees.  80 million people may lose employer health coverage.
Nov 26, 2013 7:28PM
avatar

The cost of Obamacare being passed on to workers...

 

Shocking...

Nov 27, 2013 2:24PM
avatar

Dave1230...  I have exited the insurance business.  I cancelled the group coverage I used to offer (I paid 75% of the premium).  Now I everyone of the 177 employees will have to use Obamacare.  I of course will have to reduce pay $1/hour to cover the cost of the ACA $2000/tax.  


Hence I passed the entire new cost of Obamacare unto employees.  I hope they enjoy their new democrat benefit.  They can ask the democrats when they will receive their $2500 in premium reductions.  So far I have heard that premium costs are up between 170% and 350%. 


Democrats voted for Obamacare, let them live and PAY for it.   I am sure they will remember next November.


Nov 27, 2013 1:49AM
avatar
Newsflash, Companies have been passing health-care costs to workers for over a decade via stagnant and or lower wages. Now, the ACA is just more of an excuse for companies to overpay the CEO types while gutting the wages and benefits for everyone else. Meanwhile the Wealth Divide has never been greater while Slave Labor overseas is taking away even more American Jobs.

Maybe it's high time we outsourced the CEO's Job and benefits. Then they would get a freaking clue. Record Profits and Cash Hoards but all they can do, jack up the costs for real Workers while continuing to lower wages. And this was long before Obama came into office, it just has taken on a new level lately.
Nov 27, 2013 4:30PM
avatar
companies that do provide health care have been for years passing an ever increasing amount of its cost onto their  workers shoulders while at the same time workers  real income in purchasing power is either flatlined or decreasing for years-----no small wonder our economy is anemic no matter how much funny money the government prints up
Dec 2, 2013 10:57AM
avatar
This isn't new or even news.  What was "free" in the 1990's has been rising in cost since.  Of course, now all those working have to carry the 47% who will not.
Dec 2, 2013 5:37PM
avatar
Nothing affordable about the affordable care act....just another control and power grab by the government while hackers are waiting to steal all your personal information.
Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?

DATA PROVIDERS

Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.

ABOUT SMART SPENDING

Smart Spending brings you the best money-saving tips from MSN Money and the rest of the Web. Join the conversation on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

VIDEO ON MSN MONEY

TOOLS

More